Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs
Date: 2024-05-21 19:12:04
Message-ID: ZkzyBOD-cX35wKuM@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:21:23PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:48:37PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Cool. I'll at least fix the back-branches as-is, but I'll see about
>> revamping this stuff for v18.
> Attached is probably the absolute least we should do for the back-branches.

Any concerns with doing something like this [0] for the back-branches? The
constant would be 6 instead of 7 on v14 through v16.

I wrote a quick sketch for what a runtime-computed GUC might look like for
v18. We don't have agreement on this approach, but I figured I'd post
something while we search for a better one.


Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-add-semaphores_required-GUC.patch text/plain 7.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Burroughs 2024-05-21 19:26:32 Re: libpq compression (part 3)
Previous Message Jacob Burroughs 2024-05-21 19:08:37 Re: libpq compression (part 3)