| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs |
| Date: | 2024-06-06 19:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWTmHcv9L_AgB5Vu9vQ34LBrdp8tD_O28kxDn74xhXmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 3:21 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here is a rebased version of the patch for v18 that adds a runtime-computed
> GUC. As I noted earlier, there still isn't a consensus on this approach.
I don't really like making this a GUC, but what's the other option?
It's reasonable for people to want to ask the server how many
resources it will need to start, and -C is the only tool we have for
that right now. So I feel like this is a fair thing to do.
I do think the name could use some more thought, though.
semaphores_required would end up being the same kind of thing as
shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, but the names seem randomly
different. If semaphores_required is right here, why isn't
shared_memory_required used there? Seems more like we ought to call
this semaphores or os_semaphores or num_semaphores or
num_os_semaphores or something.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Tachoires | 2024-06-06 19:41:16 | Re: Compress ReorderBuffer spill files using LZ4 |
| Previous Message | Julien Tachoires | 2024-06-06 19:31:25 | Re: Compress ReorderBuffer spill files using LZ4 |