At Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:55:43 +1200, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote in
> [Re-directing to -hackers]
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:27 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > It's per-backend state at least and just used for assertions. We could remove
> > it. Or stop checking it in places where it could be set wrongly: dshash_find()
> > and dshash_detach() couldn't check anymore, but the rest of the assertions
> > would still be valid afaics?
>
> Yeah, it's all for assertions... let's just remove it. Those
> assertions were useful to me at some stage in development but won't
> hold as well as I thought, at least without widespread PG_FINALLY(),
> which wouldn't be nice.
>
> *dsa_get_address() might need to adjust the memory map with system
> calls, which might fail. If you think of DSA as not only an allocator
> but also a poor man's user level virtual memory scheme to tide us over
> until we get threads, then this is a pretty low level kind of
> should-not-happen failure that is analogous on some level to SIGBUS or
> SIGSEGV or something like that, and we should PANIC. Then we could
> claim that dsa_get_address() is no-throw. At least, that was one
> argument I had with myself while investigating that strange Solaris
> shm_open() failure, but ... I lost the argument. It's quite an
> extreme position to take just to support these assertions, which are
> of pretty limited value.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220701232009.jcwxpl45bptaxv5n%40alap3.anarazel.de
FWIW, the discussion above is convincing to me and the patch looks good.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
