Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry

From: Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry
Date: 2023-12-20 09:02:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 20/12/2023 07:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:14:44AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:49:23AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andrei Lepikhov
>>> <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>>> 2. I think a separate file for this feature looks too expensive.
>>>> According to the gist of that code, it is a part of the DSA module.
>>> -1. I think this is a totally different thing than DSA. More files
>>> aren't nearly as expensive as the confusion that comes from smushing
>>> unrelated things together.
>> Agreed. I think there's a decent chance that more functionality will be
>> added to this registry down the line, in which case it will be even more
>> important that this stuff stays separate from the tools it is built with.
> +1 for keeping a clean separation between both.

Thanks, I got the reason.
In that case, maybe change the test case to make it closer to real-life
usage - with locks and concurrent access (See attachment)?

Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Attachment Content-Type Size
elaborate_tests.txt text/plain 4.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2023-12-20 09:08:42 Re: backtrace_on_internal_error
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-12-20 08:50:06 Re: Function to get invalidation cause of a replication slot.