From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Lock structures |
Date: | 2001-02-23 15:29:59 |
Message-ID: | 27950.982942199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can someone explain why LockMethodCtl is in shared memory while
> LockMethodTable is in postmaster memory context?
> I realize LockMethodCtl has a spinlock, so it has to be in shared
> memory, but couldn't it all be put in shared memory?
I think the original point was not to assume that the shared-memory
pointers would be the same in each backend. Right now we don't need
that, but I see no good reason to change the data structure.
> size += MAXALIGN(maxBackends * sizeof(LOCKMETHODCTL)); /* each
> * lockMethodTable->ctl */
> Is there one LOCKMETHODCTL for every backend? I thought there was only
> one of them.
You're right, that line is erroneous; it should read
size += MAX_LOCK_METHODS * MAXALIGN(sizeof(LOCKMETHODCTL));
Not a significant error but it should be changed for clarity ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-23 15:41:34 | Re: AW: ask for help !!! (emergency case) |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-02-23 15:00:21 | Re: RE: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance |