David Gilbert <dgilbert@velocet.ca> writes:
> I don't often ask a question, but it's been bugging me for some time:
> is there any reason why PostgreSQL must use SysV shared memory?
> Coming from the BSD camp, I've often pondered why it doesn't use
> BSD-style shared memory (which is often easier to allocate in the BSD
> world).
Well, I must say this is the first time I've heard of "BSD-style shared
memory". What are the syscalls? How portable is it? Does it have the
semantics we need (specifically, the ability to associate an ID with a
shmem segment, and the ability to discover whether any other processes
are attached to an existing shmem segment)?
regards, tom lane
