On 16.06.2011 20:22, A.M. wrote:
I don't believe any conclusions were reached because the debate concerned
whether or not fcntl locking was sufficient. I thought so while others pointed
out that the proposed interlock would not work with mutli-client NFSv3 despite
the fact that the current int
On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What's the current state of the POSIX shared memory patch? I grabbed the
> patch from
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/d9edacf7-53f1-4355-84f8-2e74cd19d...@themactionfaction.com
> and it doesn't seem to apply cleanly any more
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> What's the current state of the POSIX shared memory patch? I grabbed the
> patch from
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/d9edacf7-53f1-4355-84f8-2e74cd19d...@themactionfaction.com
> and it doesn't seem to apply cleanly any more
What's the current state of the POSIX shared memory patch? I grabbed the
patch from
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/d9edacf7-53f1-4355-84f8-2e74cd19d...@themactionfaction.com
and it doesn't seem to apply cleanly any more. Are you planning to
continue working on it?
If I understood t
