From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum launcher occurs error when cancelled by SIGINT |
Date: | 2017-06-21 16:29:27 |
Message-ID: | CAGz5QC+H19idkjN_x8DNYTQUxXrqeiS8TCReg9prnWr=6=tN0w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> IMHO, It's not a good idea to use DSM call to verify the DSA handle.
>>>
>> Okay. Is there any particular scenario you've in mind where this may fail?
>
> It's not about failure, but about the abstraction. When we are using
> the DSA we should not directly access the DSM which is under DSA.
>
Okay. I thought that I've found at least one usage of
dsm_find_mapping() in the code. :-)
But, I've some more doubts.
1. When should we use dsm_find_mapping()? (The first few lines of
dsm_attach is same as dsm_find_mapping().)
2. As a user of dsa, how should we check whether my dsa handle is
already attached? I guess this is required because, if a user tries to
re-attach a dsa handle, it's punishing the user by throwing an error
and the user wants to avoid such errors.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-21 16:33:56 | Re: Broken hint bits (freeze) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-21 16:27:20 | Re: Shortened URLs for commit messages |