From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jun 3 21:40:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat193.72.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.193.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E2614FE8; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:40:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA55405; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:40:37 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:40:36 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Eivind Eklund Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sun Spurs Innovation in Supercomputing In-Reply-To: <19990604054634.K77195@bitbox.follo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Eivind Eklund wrote: > Replacing the lock calls with calls to an API for a distributed lock > manager. This allowed the use of PostgreSQL in high-availability > clusters, with two machines sharing the same physical "disk" > (actually, RAID array). Not quick sure how this applies (if it even does), but v6.5 of PostgreSQL has had major changes done to it on its 'concurrency' code, to improve locking...but I'm suspecting that its not 'client' locking you are talking about here? Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message