Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYygUZ=VhyQOMgrTOEgv_FHN6EQ9ERPa9YwiG1VnTM_rA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>>> I think we should give serious consideration to back-patching commit >>>>> ecb0d20a9, which changed the default semaphore type to unnamed-POSIX >>>>> on Linux. > >>>> Urk. That sounds like a scary thing to back-patch. > >>> I don't deny that it's scary, but the alternative seems to be to be >>> rather badly broken on systemd-using distros for years to come. >>> That's pretty scary too. > >> Why can't this be configurable? > > It already is. Note that I said "default". > > As things stand, it's only a configure-time choice, but I've been > thinking that we might be well advised to make it run-time configurable. Sure. A configure-time choice only benefits people who are compiling from source, which as far as production is concerned is almost nobody. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: