Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE

From: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE
Date: 2007-04-11 07:09:58
Message-ID: 20070411155407.0FA0.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> > I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component?
> It's a hangover from Berkeley days that no one has felt a need to remove yet.
>
> > Then, can we replace SHM_QUEUE by a pointer-based double-linked list?
> What exactly will you gain by it? I'm not inclined to fool with that
> code for trivial reasons ...

Hmmm, my next question is whether we should use SHM_QUEUE or not in
new modules. The point deluded me when I wrote DSM and I wondered
the autovacuum-multiworkers patch uses SHM_QUEUE.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-04-11 07:19:24 Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-04-11 06:52:41 Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks