| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PROC struct |
| Date: | 2001-02-05 16:36:52 |
| Message-ID: | 16710.981391012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Myron Scott <mscott(at)sacadia(dot)com> writes:
> May I suggest that watiHolder and waitLock pointers
> in the proc struct in proc.h be changed from direct
> pointers to SHMEM_OFFSET. They are both shared memory
> structures in a shared memory structure and it would
> be more consistent to make these SHMEM_OFFSET. Direct
> pointers will be a problem if another process which is
> not the result of a fork tries to attach to the shared memory.
I don't really foresee that that's an issue --- any process
we might conceivably want to have reading the shmem would be
spawned by the postmaster anyway. I've actually been thinking
about ripping out the shmem-offset-to-pointer-and-back conversions
on the grounds of code simplification, readability, reliability
(the compiler cannot detect whether you are casting a reconverted
SHMEM_OFFSET to the wrong pointer type), and speed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nabil Sayegh | 2001-02-05 16:38:45 | Re: timestamp/date bug |
| Previous Message | Max Vaschenko | 2001-02-05 16:23:36 | postmaster grows |