Re: same-address mappings vs. relative pointers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: same-address mappings vs. relative pointers
Date
Msg-id 20131205140042.GG14419@alap2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: same-address mappings vs. relative pointers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2013-12-05 15:57:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As a side-note, I've been thinking that we don't really need same-address
> mapping for shared_buffers either. Getting rid of it wouldn't buy us
> anything right now, but if we wanted e.g to make shared_buffers changeable
> without a restart, that would be useful.

I doubt it's that easy to gid of atm (at least in !EXEC_BACKEND), but if
we ever want to properly support ALSR in EXEC_BACKEND environments, we
might need to go there. The hacks windows does around it are already
quite ugly.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search