New shared memory hooks proposal (was Re: pre_load_libraries)

From: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: New shared memory hooks proposal (was Re: pre_load_libraries)
Date: 2006-07-13 15:40:28
Message-ID: 1152805228.18709.14.camel@bloodnok.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 01:13 -0300, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> > ... A better solution from my point of view would be
> > to simply move the call to process_preload_libraries to a point
> after
> > shared memory has been set up. Is there some reason this could not
> be
> > done?
>
> That would make it impossible for a preloaded library to request any
> shared memory of its own --- something that admittedly we don't have a
> hook to support, but do we want to foreclose it permanently?

That does sound like the right way to go. Here is my new proposal:

Add-ins register their requirement for shared memory using a new
function: RegisterShmemRequirement(char *context_name, int size). This
would be called by the init function called from
process_preload_libraries.

When shared memory is initialised, extra space is allocated for each
registered add-in. Each add-in's registered allocation is a separate
memory context identified by the context_name parameter provided during
registration.

Add-ins allocate shared memory from their own context using a new
function ShemAddinAlloc(), which adds the context_name parameter to the
normal ShemAlloc parameter list.

This would save add-ins from having to manage their own shared memory
segements while providing a degree of separation and isolation so that
one add-in could not exhaust the shared memory of another or of the
backend.

If this is acceptable, I think it is within my skill level to implement.
Comments?

__
Marc

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bernd Helmle 2006-07-13 15:44:59 Re: Updateable views for 8.2 or 8.3?
Previous Message A.M. 2006-07-13 15:33:15 Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze