| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's remove DSM_INPL_NONE. |
| Date: | 2018-02-28 04:18:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFC0fpMUh1XT4Yz4MdP4q0auQr1UG2OOcYP0s8tD9KBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> What I'm concerned about isn't so much testing paths specific to
> dynamic_shared_memory_type=none, but paths where we currently need
> fallbacks for the case we couldn't actually allocate dynamic shared
> memory. Which I think we at least somewhat gracefully need to deal with.
Well, it's not very hard to just hack the code to make dsm_create()
always fail, or fail X% of the time, if you're so inclined. I agree
that -c dynamic_shared_memory_type=none is a little more convenient
than sticking something like that into the code, but I don't think
it's sufficiently more convenient to justify keeping an option we
don't otherwise want.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-28 04:30:22 | Re: Let's remove DSM_INPL_NONE. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-28 04:05:42 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 4) and patch for hash index |