"Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J]" <kbak...@its.jnj.com> writes:
> I propose that a QNX 6.5 port be introduced to PostgreSQL.
Hmm ... you're aware that there used to be a QNX port? We removed it
back in 2006 for lack of interest and maintainers, and AFAIR you're
the first person to show any interest in reintroducing it since then.
I'm a bit concerned about reintroducing something that seems to have so
little usage, especially if the port is going to be as invasive as you
suggest:
> * QNX lacks System V shared memory: I created
> "src/backend/port/posix_shmem.c" which replaces System V calls (shmget,
> shmat, shmdt, ...) with POSIX calls (shm_open, mmap, munmap, shm_unlink)
This isn't really acceptable for production usage; if it were, we'd have
done it already. The POSIX APIs lack any way to tell how many processes
are attached to a shmem segment, which is *necessary* functionality for
us (it's a critical part of the interlock against starting multiple
postmasters in one data directory).
> * QNX lacks sigaction SA_RESTART: I modified "src/include/port.h" to
> define macros to retry system calls upon EINTR (open,read,write,...) when
> compiled on QNX
That's pretty scary too. For one thing, such macros would affect every
call site whether it's running with SA_RESTART or not. Do you really
need it? It looks to me like we just turn off HAVE_POSIX_SIGNALS if
you don't have SA_RESTART. Maybe that code has bit-rotted by now, but
it did work at one time.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
