Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-06-26T22:25:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > So let's fix the 80% case with something we feel confident in, and then > revisit the no-sysv interlock as a separate patch. That way if we can't > fix the interlock issues, we still have a reduced-shmem version of Postgres. Yes. Insisting that we have the whole change in one patch is a good way to prevent any forward progress from happening. As Alvaro noted, there are plenty of issues to resolve without trying to change the interlock mechanism at the same time. regards, tom lane