From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime |
Date: | 2014-03-10 16:44:15 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+NmB_vKUF7QcUBBR49DAMgM_uHk79gUO_Vn4187MkK5g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I took a look at this patch. It seems to me that it doesn't do a very
>> good job maintaining the abstraction boundary between what the dsm.c
>> layer knows about and what the dsm_impl.c layer knows about. However,
>> AFAICS, these problems are purely cosmetic, so I took a crack at
>> fixing them. I retitled the new implementation-layer function to
>> dsm_impl_keep_segment(), swapped the order of the arguments for
>> consistency with other code, adjusted the dsm_impl.c code slightly to
>> avoid assuming that only the Windows implementation works on Windows
>> (that's currently true, but we could probably make the mmap
>> implementation work there as well), and retooled some of the comments
>> to read better in English. I'm happy with the attached version but
>> don't have a Windows box to test it there.
>
> Thank you for looking into patch. I have verified that attached patch
> works fine on Windows.
>
> One observation in new version of patch:
>
> + {
> + char name[64];
> +
> + snprintf(name, 64, "%s.%u", SEGMENT_NAME_PREFIX, handle);
> + _dosmaperr(GetLastError());
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errcode_for_dynamic_shared_memory(),
> + errmsg("could not duplicate handle: %m")));
> + }
I have updated the patch to change message as below:
errmsg("could not duplicate handle for \"%s\": %m",
name)));
Let me know your suggestions?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
dsm_keep_segment_v5.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-03-10 16:54:36 | Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-03-10 16:18:56 | Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime |