On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, but typical SysV shared memory limits are much lower than
> > > per-process limits.
> >
> > well, come up with suitable patches for v7.2 and we can see where it goes
> > ... you seem to think mmap() will do what we require, but, so far, have
> > been unable to convince anyone to dedicate the time to converting to using
> > it. "having to raise/set SysV limits", IMHO, isn't worth the overhaul
> > that I see having to happen, but, if you can show us the benefits of doing
> > it other then removing a 'one time administrative config' of an OS, I
> > imagine that nobody will be able to argue it ...
>
> Yea, it is pretty low priority, especially since most OS's don't support
> ANON mmap(). Most BSD's support it, but I don't think Linux or others
> do.
ah, then not a low priority, a non-starter, period ... maybe when all the
OSs we support move to supporting ANON mmap() :(
