| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
| Date: | 2015-09-14 10:32:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZyU2bDO6i3S0UUkv74GCwchD1xEA-4gJJ6xPn5CWmLuQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
<i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Yes, that is because I tried to go with current convention working with
> shmem in Postgres (there are one function that returns the size and
> others that initialize that memory). But I like your suggestion about
> API functions, in that case number of tranches and locks will be known
> during the initialization.
I also want to leave the door open to tranches that are registered
after initialization. At that point, it's too late to put a tranche
in shared memory, but you can still use DSM.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-09-14 10:33:45 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-09-14 10:30:19 | Re: Testing WAL replay by comparing before and after images again |