| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry |
| Date: | 2024-01-11 03:22:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20240111032237.GB3376512@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:50:19AM +0700, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 9/1/2024 00:16, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:53:17AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>> > 2. FWIW, I'd like to call this whole feature "Support for named DSM
>> > segments in Postgres". Do you see anything wrong with this?
>>
>> Why do you feel it should be renamed? I don't see anything wrong with it,
>> but I also don't see any particular advantage with that name compared to
>> "dynamic shared memory registry."
> It is not a big issue, I suppose. But for me personally (as not a native
> English speaker), the label "Named DSM segments" seems more straightforward
> to understand.
That is good to know, thanks. I see that it would also align better with
RequestNamedLWLockTranche/GetNamedLWLockTranche.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-11 03:37:58 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-01-11 03:19:48 | Re: Streaming I/O, vectored I/O (WIP) |