Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

Arthur Zakirov wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 01:55:57PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So what are you going to use instead?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> To allocate IspellDict in this case it is necessary to calculate needed
> memory size. I think arrays mentioned above will be built first then
> memcpy'ed into IspellDict, if it won't take much time.

OK, that sounds sensible on first blush. If there are many processes
concurrently doing text searches, then the amnount of memory saved may
be large enough to justify the additional processing (moreso if it's
just one more memcpy cycle).

I hope that there is some way to cope with the ispell data changing
underneath -- maybe you'll need some sort of RCU?

> > So this will be a large patch not submitted to 2018-01? Depending on
> > size/complexity I'm not sure it's OK to submit 2018-03 only -- it may be
> > too late.
>
> Oh, I see. I try to prepare the patch while 2018-01 is open.

It isn't necessary that the patch to present to 2018-01 is final and
complete (so don't kill yourself to achieve that) -- a preliminary patch
that reviewers can comment on is enough, as long as the final patch you
present to 2018-03 is not *too* different. But any medium-large patch
whose first post is to the last commitfest of a cycle is likely to be
thrown out to the next cycle's first commitfest very quickly.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services