Re: dynamic shared memory and locks

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> OTOH, the LWLock mechanism has been stable for long enough now that
>> we can probably suppose this struct is no more subject to churn than
>> any other widely-known one, so maybe that consideration is no longer
>> significant.

> On the whole, I'd say it's been more stable than most. But even if we
> do decide to change it, I'm not sure that really matters very much.

Actually, the real value of a module-local struct definition is that you
can be pretty darn sure that nothing except the code in that file is
manipulating the struct contents. I would've preferred that we expose
only an abstract struct definition, but don't quite see how to do that
if we're going to embed the things in buffer headers.

regards, tom lane