"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... The one I'm most
>> worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared
>> memory in a free-for-all" - because there's no patch for that yet,
>> and I am wary of breaking something mucking around with it.
> I haven't seen any objection to Heikki's suggestion for how to
> handle the shared memory free-for-all:
I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very
much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all?
What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by
whichever table uses it first?
regards, tom lane