Re: PROC struct

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PROC struct
Date: 2001-02-05 16:36:52
Message-ID: 16710.981391012@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com> writes:
> May I suggest that watiHolder and waitLock pointers
> in the proc struct in proc.h be changed from direct
> pointers to SHMEM_OFFSET. They are both shared memory
> structures in a shared memory structure and it would
> be more consistent to make these SHMEM_OFFSET. Direct
> pointers will be a problem if another process which is
> not the result of a fork tries to attach to the shared memory.

I don't really foresee that that's an issue --- any process
we might conceivably want to have reading the shmem would be
spawned by the postmaster anyway. I've actually been thinking
about ripping out the shmem-offset-to-pointer-and-back conversions
on the grounds of code simplification, readability, reliability
(the compiler cannot detect whether you are casting a reconverted
SHMEM_OFFSET to the wrong pointer type), and speed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nabil Sayegh 2001-02-05 16:38:45 Re: timestamp/date bug
Previous Message Max Vaschenko 2001-02-05 16:23:36 postmaster grows