On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mark Kirkwood < mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> On 22/04/14 09:25, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: >>> >>>> If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great >>>> but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that >>>> no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates >>>> helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or >>> Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue. >>> >> >> I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We >> have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type. >> >> > +1 > > I was just thinking the same thing... > > I didn't realize we had a guc for dynamic shared memory, must've missed that in the discussion about that one. I agree that if we have that, it makes perfect sense to have the same setting available for the main shared memory segment. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
