Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From james
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 52C9979F.3060200@mansionfamily.plus.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/01/2014 16:50, Robert Haas wrote:<br /></div><blockquote
cite="mid:CA+TgmoYPec_Awn+NM-ETnzOwyiYMmH-JaH1-LDOvFDqsFojsTw@mail.gmail.com"type="cite"><pre wrap=""> But on Windows,
segmentsare <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>automatically<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
destroyed <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>by the operating system<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>when the last process unmaps them,
 
so it's not quite so clear to me how we can allow it there.  The main
shared memory segment is no problem because the postmaster always has
it mapped, even if no one else does, but that doesn't help for dynamic
shared memory segments.
</pre></blockquote> Surely you just need to DuplicateHandle into the parent process?  If you<br /> want to (tidily)
disposeof it at some time, then you'll need to tell the<br /> postmaster that you have done so and what the handle is
inits process,<br /> but if you just want it to stick around, then you can just pass it up.<br /><br /> 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: dynamic shared memory and locks