Re: Calling PGReserveSemaphores() from CreateOrAttachShmemStructs

On 26/08/2025 10:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 3:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 9:10 PM Ashutosh Bapat
>> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Is this change correct? Was there any reason to leave it like that in
>>> e25626677f8076eb3ce94586136c5464ee154381? Or was it just something
>>> that didn't fit in that commit?
>>
>> We/I just missed that opportunity when ripping that stuff out. It
>> sounds like we might need a comment-only patch to back-patch to 18
>> that would say something like "this is done here for historical
>> reasons" so as not to confuse people with obsolete nonsense, and a
>> follow up patch for master to do things in a more straightforward way
>> as you said.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation.
>
> Attached patchset has two patches
> 0001 - backpatchable, adds the comment.
> 0002 - actual code changes for master. The changes are described in
> the commit message in detail. I think ProcGlobalSemas() too, can be
> converted into a macro or can be declared static inline, but I haven't
> done so. I think it eliminates all the asymmetric handling of
> semaphores.
>
>>
>>> If the change looks safe and useful, I will create CF entry for it so
>>> that the patch gets tested on all platforms, and thus with different
>>> definitions of PGReserveSemaphores().
>>
>> +1, will review, thanks!
>
> Added a CF entry so that CI tests the changes on many platforms.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5997/

Looks good to me. I can commit this, but since Thomas said he'd review
it, I'll give him a few days for that if he finds the time.

- Heikki