Re: POSIX Shared memory, revised, again

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:17:44AM -0800, Chris Marcellino wrote:
> So I've finished reformulating this patch to use the device/inode
> instead of the hash idea I had earlier.
>
> I have tested this patch (on Darwin) to permit the postmaster to
> recover after a crash or killing, and it will not permit the
> postmaster to restart while another postmaster or backends are still
> in the database (regardless of the lockfile status).  The ideas are
> the same as before, but are described via flowchart in the attached
> PDF.

The PDF didn't come through.  Could you please re-send?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate