| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dsm_unpin_segment |
| Date: | 2016-08-09 22:38:50 |
| Message-ID: | 7e3bee99-6be0-e976-ab2a-f000196785a3@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/9/16 1:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> However, I don't see the need for a full-blown request
> counter here; we've had this API for several releases now and to my
> knowledge nobody has complained about the fact that you aren't
> supposed to call dsm_pin_segment() multiple times for the same
> segment.
Could a couple of static variables be used to ensure multiple pin/unpin
and attach/detach calls throw an assert() (or become a no-op if asserts
are disabled)? It would be nice if we could protect users from this.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-08-09 23:09:00 | Re: Wait events monitoring future development |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-08-09 21:07:54 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |