| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Add a callback data parameter to GetNamedDSMSegment |
| Date: | 2025-12-12 21:07:22 |
| Message-ID: | aTyECsCvicaF40iA@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:56:39PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> fair point. In that case why don't we just keep:
>
> [...]
> - LWLockInitialize(&dsm->lck, LWLockNewTrancheId("test_dsm_registry"));
> + LWLockInitialize(&dsm->lck, LWLockNewTrancheId((char *) arg));
> dsm->val = 0;
> [...]
>
> instead of creating a new test? For the other GetNamedDSMSegment calls,
> I'll pass NULL to the void * and hard code the tranche name in the init
> callback.
I think we should verify the pointer value more directly. For example, we
could pass something like (uintptr_t) 0x12345 via the callback argument and
then verify it's the same in the callback.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2025-12-12 21:47:30 | Re: [PATCH] pg_bsd_indent: improve formatting of multiline comments |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2025-12-12 21:07:04 | Re: Proposal: Add a callback data parameter to GetNamedDSMSegment |