| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
| Date: | 2017-08-16 12:42:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYac8jgrcsiTuqVzwndP-iZn-N6sFDtGppwnZeswQSSZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-08-15 20:30:16 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > Interesting. I was apparently thinking slightly differently. I'd have
>> > thought we'd have Session struct in statically allocated shared
>> > memory. Which'd then have dsa_handle, dshash_table_handle, ... members.
>>
>> Sounds an awful lot like what we're already doing with PGPROC.
>
> Except it'd be shared between leader and workers. So no, not really.
There's precedent for using it that way, though - cf. group locking.
And in practice you're going to need an array of the same length as
the procarray. It's maybe not quite the same thing, but it smells
pretty similar.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-08-16 12:48:31 | Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order |
| Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2017-08-16 12:20:02 | Re: Orphaned files in base/[oid] |