Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to make an item on my personal TODO list for that. No useful
>> insights on that right now, though.
>
>I decided to try that, but it didn't really work: fd.h gets included
>by front-end code, so I can't very well define a struct and declare
>functions that deal in dsm_segment and slock_t. On the other hand it
>does seem a bit better to for these shared file sets to work in terms
>of File, not BufFile.
Realistically, fd.h has a number of functions that are really owned by
buffile.c already. This sounds fine.
> That way you don't have to opt in to BufFile's
>double buffering and segmentation schemes just to get shared file
>clean-up, if for some reason you want direct file handles.
Is that something that you really think is possible?
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
