Tom Lane wrote:
>I'll repeat what I said in response to your other posting:
>
>
Hm? I never posted something with shared mem usage before, what do you mean?
>This uses a shared memory area with no lock, which seems a bad design;
>
>
AFAICS there should be no lock necessary.
>We agreed long ago that the
>postmaster should never depend on the correctness of any shared memory
>data structure; but this patch would make it do so.
>
>
I understand that, so what's the suggested way to store data common for
all backends?
Regards,
Andreas
