On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > > If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great
> > > but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that
> > > no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates
> > > helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL.
> >
> > I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or
> > Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue.
>
> I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We
> have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type.
I agree. The ideal is nobody wishing for an option, but I'd rather have the
option if a non-theoretical set of users is feeling the pain of its absence.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
