| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2024-06-09 19:04:17 |
| Message-ID: | ZmX8sSw8ZiS4tNDL@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:31:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm fine with any of your suggestions. If I _had_ to pick one, I'd
> probably choose num_os_semaphores because it's the most descriptive.
Here's a new version of the patch with the GUC renamed to
num_os_semaphores.
--
nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-add-num_os_semaphores-GUC.patch | text/plain | 8.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Koshakow | 2024-06-09 20:08:37 | Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers? |
| Previous Message | cca5507 | 2024-06-09 15:21:52 | Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state |