Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There's nothing vestigial about SHM_QUEUE --- it's used by the
> lock manager. But it's intended to link together structs whose
> existence is managed by somebody else.
Yep, that's exactly my problem.
> I'm not excited about inventing an API with just one use-case;
> it's unlikely that you actually end up with anything generally
> useful. (SHM_QUEUE seems like a case in point...) Especially
> when there are so many other constraints on what shared memory is
> usable for. You might as well just do this internally to the
> SERIALIZABLEXACT management code.
Fair enough. I'll probably abstract it within the SSI patch anyway,
just because it will keep the other code cleaner where the logic is
necessarily kinda messy anyway, and I think it'll reduce the chance
of weird memory bugs. I just won't get quite so formal about the
interface.
-Kevin