Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> If we force people to give a --without-spinlocks config option to build > > >> that way, then `pg_config --configure' will reveal the dirty deed ... > > > > > That's not quite what I meant :) Right now, if I understood what Bruce > > > was saying, if someone doesn't have spinlocks, it switches to using SysV > > > Messenging, correct? In the current system, is there anything that one > > > can do on a running, live system, to detect that you aren't using > > > spinlocks? > > > > It'll be fairly obvious if you use "ipcs -s" and count up the number of > > semaphores created by the postmaster. Ordinarily we will grab > > approximately max_connections semas, but without spinlocks it will > > be somewhere north of max_connections + 2 * shared_buffers ... > > 'K, now, I know we acquire all our shared_buffers on startup now ... do we > do the same with semaphores? Or do they only grow as connections grow? > If we do acquire at the start, would it not be trivial to add a message to > the startup messages, based on #_of_semaphores != max_connections, that > tells ppl that spinlocks aren't being used?
But why not warn at compile time. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
