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

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2024-06-09 19:04:17
Message-ID: ZmX8sSw8ZiS4tNDL@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:31:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I do think the name could use some more thought, though.
>> semaphores_required would end up being the same kind of thing as
>> shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, but the names seem randomly
>> different. If semaphores_required is right here, why isn't
>> shared_memory_required used there? Seems more like we ought to call
>> this semaphores or os_semaphores or num_semaphores or
>> num_os_semaphores or something.
> I'm fine with any of your suggestions. If I _had_ to pick one, I'd
> probably choose num_os_semaphores because it's the most descriptive.

Here's a new version of the patch with the GUC renamed to


Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-add-num_os_semaphores-GUC.patch text/plain 8.0 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joseph Koshakow 2024-06-09 20:08:37 Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?
Previous Message cca5507 2024-06-09 15:21:52 Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state