From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: reorganize "Shared Memory and LWLocks" section of docs |
Date: | 2024-01-12 15:46:50 |
Message-ID: | 20240112154650.GA3565306@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for reviewing.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:12:28PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> """
> Any registered shmem_startup_hook will be executed shortly after each
> backend attaches to shared memory.
> """
>
> IMO the word "each" here can give the wrong impression as if there are
> certain guarantees about synchronization between backends. Maybe we
> should change this to simply "... will be executed shortly after
> [the?] backend attaches..."
I see what you mean, but I don't think the problem is the word "each." I
think the problem is the use of passive voice. What do you think about
something like
Each backend will execute the registered shmem_startup_hook shortly
after it attaches to shared memory.
> """
> should ensure that only one process allocates a new tranche_id
> (LWLockNewTrancheId) and initializes each new LWLock
> (LWLockInitialize).
> """
>
> Personally I think that reminding the corresponding function name here
> is redundant and complicates reading just a bit. But maybe it's just
> me.
Yeah, I waffled on this one. I don't mind removing it.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-01-12 15:51:24 | Re: Make all Perl warnings fatal |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-12 15:45:33 | Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay |