Re: [APC-DEV] 3.0.12 release

>> An malloc() cache of 20 entries doesn't sound too hard to do. Especially
>> since there's none of the pending member hacks in a process (what about
>> TSRM pthread folks ?).
>
> Yeah, for TSRM I guess we don't gain anything, so I'd say disable it in 
> TSRM mode.  Nobody sane runs TSRM anyway.
>
Why wouldn't we gain?  If the storage is in APCG() then it's still "local" 
from the standpoint of that thread and hence doesn't need locking...

Of course, the other side of that question is: Would TSRM benefit from 
storing the cached entries in the process space and forgetting about shm? 
I'm not sure what the shm overhead amounts to but I suspect that it's small 
compared to the complication of having the extra storage mechanism logic 
tied up in there...

-Sara