| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Date: | 2012-06-26 23:30:09 |
| Message-ID: | 15869.1340753409@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg윈 토토SQL : |
"A.M." <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> writes:
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I'm simply suggesting that for additional benefits it may be worth
>> thinking about getting around nattach and thus SysV shmem, especially
>> with regard to safety, in an open-ended way.
> I solved this via fcntl locking.
No, you didn't, because fcntl locks aren't inherited by child processes.
Too bad, because they'd be a great solution otherwise.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-27 00:13:18 | Re: [PATCH 08/16] Introduce the ApplyCache module which can reassemble transactions from a stream of interspersed changes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-26 23:26:00 | embedded list v2 |