On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:47:51AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Just a reminder we might have *BSD performance issues with our use of > > Posix shared memory in Postgres 9.3. I am attaching the PDF the user > > posted. > > This is a good point. The question which I believe I asked before and > haven't gotten an answer to is whether there's some way to get the > benefit of shm_use_phys with an anonymous mapping. > > It seems to me to be slightly insane to impose draconian shared memory > limits out of the box and then complain when people switch to some > other type of shared memory to get around them. I realize that > Dragonfly may not be doing that (because I think they may have raised > the default shared-memory limits), but I believe some of the more > mainstream BSDs are. > > I suppose we could add a GUC for this, but that's not very appealing, either.
I think we are going to need keep an eye on this during beta. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
