Re: darwin pgsql patches
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: darwin pgsql patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21508.976045580@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: darwin pgsql patches (Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: darwin pgsql patches
Re: darwin pgsql patches |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes: > Where can I find > a description of the POSIX version of semaphores? > POSIX semaphores can in principle live in either user space or kernel > space. They are mainly designed for user space, though. > If you have access to a GNU/Linux system, you can do `man sem_init'. > Or, I just did a quick web search, and found this: > http://helix.nih.gov/cgi-bin/man.cgi?section=3&topic=sem_init Hm. It's clearly possible to base Postgres's semaphore stuff on unnamed Posix semaphores living in the shared memory area (which eliminates the issue of inheritance by child processes). You'd need to revise the API presented by ipc.c so that it doesn't depend on semaphore IDs and keys. I'm inclined to envision a type "pg_semaphore" that's either "sem_t" in the POSIX case or struct { int sem_id, sem_num; } in the SysV case, and then all the ipc.c routines take a pg_semaphore *. There's some code to allocate semaphores to backends in proc.c that would need to be rewritten, but the impact ought to be pretty localized. How efficient are POSIX semaphores, anyway? I wonder if we couldn't also replace spinlocks with them... > BTW, should I expect that POSIX also ignored the SysV IPC spec for > shared memory? > Yes. POSIX.1 standardizes mmap instead. Another TODO item I suppose :-( regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: