On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM, A.M. <age...@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 <mar...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
