* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> I didn't realize we had a guc for dynamic shared memory, must've missed
> that in the discussion about that one. I agree that if we have that, it
> makes perfect sense to have the same setting available for the main shared
> memory segment.
I recall the back-and-forth about the issues with dynamic shared memory
but I had hoped they would result in a solution that didn't involve
having to support both..
Thanks,
Stephen