On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL.
I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue.
I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type.
+1
I was just thinking the same thing...
I didn't realize we had a guc for dynamic shared memory, must've missed that in the discussion about that one. I agree that if we have that, it makes perfect sense to have the same setting available for the main shared memory segment.
