Re: POSIX shared memory patch status - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: POSIX shared memory patch status
Date
Msg-id 4DFA5972.2080205@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POSIX shared memory patch status  ("A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 16.06.2011 20:22, A.M. wrote:
> I don't believe any conclusions were reached because the debate concerned whether or not fcntl locking was
sufficient.I thought so while others pointed out that the proposed interlock would not work with mutli-client NFSv3
despitethe fact that the current interlock doesn't either.
 
>
> I originally made the patch because SysV memory sometimes requires reboots which is especially annoying when
expandingan existing production db server. Even if the next version of postgresql incorporates a hybrid SysV/POSIX
shmemsetup, reboots may still be required if one runs any other processes requiring SysV shmem (such as older versions
ofpostgresql).
 
>
> In any case, I lost interest in maintaining the patch and would not object to having the patch removed from the
CommitFest.

Ok, I'll mark this as "returned with feedback" then. Thanks for your 
efforts anyway!

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch