From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
Date: | 2014-10-09 03:49:05 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KaCDBC3_yRLh521JYvLn6kGLWQbpc_jRERFLQUe5SnfQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> > /*
> > + * Arrange to remove a dynamic shared memory mapping at cleanup time.
> > + *
> > + * dsm_keep_mapping() can be used to preserve a mapping for the entire
> > + * lifetime of a process; this function reverses that decision, making
> > + * the segment owned by the current resource owner. This may be useful
> > + * just before performing some operation that will invalidate the
segment
> > + * for future use by this backend.
> > + */
> > +void
> > +dsm_unkeep_mapping(dsm_segment *seg)
> > +{
> > + Assert(seg->resowner == NULL);
> > + ResourceOwnerEnlargeDSMs(CurrentResourceOwner);
> > + seg->resowner = CurrentResourceOwner;
> > + ResourceOwnerRememberDSM(seg->resowner, seg);
> > +}
>
> Hm, I dislike the name unkeep.
I also think function name is not appropriate as per functionality.
> I guess you want to be symmetric to
> dsm_keep_mapping? dsm_manage_mapping(), dsm_ensure_mapping_cleanup()
> dm_remember_mapping()?
Another could be dsm_change_mapping(). Yet another idea could
be that we use single function (dsm_manage_mapping() with an
additional parameter to indicate the scope of segment) instead of
two different functions dsm_keep_mapping() and
dsm_unkeep_mapping().
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | furuyao | 2014-10-09 04:47:11 | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-10-09 03:37:05 | Re: Deferring some AtStart* allocations? |