Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
Date
Msg-id 199909201413.KAA01560@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I don't think it's worth messing with either.  It'd be nice for code
> beautification purposes to (a) combine the three shared-mem segments
> we currently have into one, and (b) rely on the postmaster's having
> attached the segment, so that all backends will see it at the same
> location in their address space, which would let us get rid of the
> MAKE_OFFSET/MAKE_PTR cruft.  But getting the full benefit would
> require cleaning up a lot of code, and it just doesn't seem like
> a high-priority task.  I'm also a little worried that we'd be
> sacrificing portability --- some day we might be glad that we can
> move those segments around...

My opinion is that this code is complex enough without additional
complexity.  If something can be removed/cleaned, why not do it?  It is
usually very easy to do and doesn't take much time.  The next person who
has to mess with it will thank us.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism?
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?