On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM, A.M. <agentm@themactionfaction.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2011 04:16 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:09:48PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> Frankly, I think this is an example of how our current shared memory
>>>>> model is a piece of garbage.
>>>>
>>>> What other model(s) might work better?
>>>
>>> Thread based, dynamically allocatable and resizeable shared memory, as
>>> most other projects and developers use, for example.
>>
>> Or less invasively, a small sysv shm to prevent the double-postmaster
>> problem, and allocate the rest using POSIX shm.
>
> Such a patch was proposed and rejected:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/94791
I know. We need to revisit that for 9.2 and un-reject it. It's nice
that PostgreSQL can run on my thermostat, but it isn't nice that
that's the only place where it delivers the expected level of
performance.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
