From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |
Date: | 1999-09-20 14:13:48 |
Message-ID: | 199909201413.KAA01560@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I don't think it's worth messing with either. It'd be nice for code
> beautification purposes to (a) combine the three shared-mem segments
> we currently have into one, and (b) rely on the postmaster's having
> attached the segment, so that all backends will see it at the same
> location in their address space, which would let us get rid of the
> MAKE_OFFSET/MAKE_PTR cruft. But getting the full benefit would
> require cleaning up a lot of code, and it just doesn't seem like
> a high-priority task. I'm also a little worried that we'd be
> sacrificing portability --- some day we might be glad that we can
> move those segments around...
My opinion is that this code is complex enough without additional
complexity. If something can be removed/cleaned, why not do it? It is
usually very easy to do and doesn't take much time. The next person who
has to mess with it will thank us.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-20 14:28:08 | Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-20 14:12:28 | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |