Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory and memory context question

2006-02-06 Thread Richard Hills
On Mon February 6 2006 05:17, Mark Woodward wrote: I posted some source to a shared memory sort of thing to the group, as well as to you, I believe. Indeed, and it looks rather interesting. I'll have a look through it when I have a chance... So, after more discussion and

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory and memory context question

2006-02-05 Thread Richard Hills
On Sun February 5 2006 14:11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: This is the generally accepted method. Please remember that when sharing structures you have to worry about concurrency. So you need locking. Of course - I have already implemented locking with semaphores (I may simply use one big

Re: [HACKERS] Shared memory and memory context question

2006-02-05 Thread Richard Hills
On Sun February 5 2006 16:16, Tom Lane wrote: AFAICT the data structures you are worried about don't have any readily predictable size, which means there is no good way to keep them in shared memory --- we can't dynamically resize shared memory. So I think storing the rules in a table and