From: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry |
Date: | 2025-06-11 14:18:50 |
Message-ID: | CAH2L28v8htjNgcC-7dCdpo4tiLjo1-+tsUr1SwA6G3D3czZdog@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 07:15:56PM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote:
> >> How can one dsa_allocate in the same area as the returned dshash_table ?
> >> in other words: shouldn't the state->dsa_handle be returned somehow ?
> >
> > +1. FWIW, Having used the DSA apis in my code, I think having the
> registry
> > return
> > the mapped dsa address or dsa handle will benefit users who use
> dsa_allocate
> > to allocate smaller chunks within the dsa.
>
> I considered adding another function that would create/attach a DSA in the
> DSM registry, since that's already an intermediate step of dshash creation.
> We could then use that function to generate the DSA in GetNamedDSMHash().
> Would that work for your use-cases, or do you really need to use the same
> DSA as the dshash table for some reason?
>
>
This will work for me. Thank you for considering it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-11 14:20:04 | Re: ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT misleading error message |
Previous Message | Florents Tselai | 2025-06-11 14:11:54 | Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry |