Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry

From: Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(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 14:11:54
Message-ID: F2F49C7C-87A7-4410-8048-A4765C758CED@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 11 Jun 2025, at 4:57 PM, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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?

In my case the hashtable itself stores dsa_pointers (obviously stuff allocated in the dsa as the hash table itself)
so I think I can’t avoid the necessity of having it.

Unless, you see a good reason not to expose it ?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rahila Syed 2025-06-11 14:18:50 Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry
Previous Message Shlok Kyal 2025-06-11 14:07:49 Re: Skipping schema changes in publication