Re: POSIX shared memory patch status

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
despitethe fact that the current interlock doesn't either.
 
>
> I originally made the patch because SysV memory sometimes requires reboots which is especially annoying when
expandingan existing production db server. Even if the next version of postgresql incorporates a hybrid SysV/POSIX
shmemsetup, reboots may still be required if one runs any other processes requiring SysV shmem (such as older versions
ofpostgresql).
 
>
> In any case, I lost interest in maintaining the patch and would not object to having the patch removed from the
CommitFest.

Ok, I'll mark this as "returned with feedback" then. Thanks for your 
efforts anyway!

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com