| From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry |
| Date: | 2024-01-09 03:59:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAAJ_b94YaqucmRL6Pj=ENreVC76OD9Op5QhwjG0PhaVrLvKdJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:48 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:13:42AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> > +void *
> > +dsm_registry_init_or_attach(const char *key, size_t size,
> >
> > I think the name could be simple as dsm_registry_init() like we use
> > elsewhere e.g. ShmemInitHash() which doesn't say attach explicitly.
>
> That seems reasonable to me.
>
> > Similarly, I think dshash_find_or_insert() can be as simple as
> > dshash_search() and
> > accept HASHACTION like hash_search().
>
> I'm not totally sure what you mean here. If you mean changing the dshash
> API, I'd argue that's a topic for another thread.
>
Yes, you are correct. I didn't realize that existing code -- now sure, why
wouldn't we implemented as the dynahash. Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Amul
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-01-09 04:00:01 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-01-09 03:05:05 | Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo |