Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry
Date
Msg-id 20240116160748.GB100542@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:28:29AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I think it's better for GetNamedDSMSegment() to error out on empty
> 'name' and size 0. This makes the user-facing function
> GetNamedDSMSegment more concrete.

Agreed, thanks for the suggestion.

> +void *
> +GetNamedDSMSegment(const char *name, size_t size,
> +                   void (*init_callback) (void *ptr), bool *found)
> 
> +    Assert(found);
> 
> Why is input parameter 'found' necessary to be passed by the caller?
> Neither the test module added, nor the pg_prewarm is using the found
> variable. The function will anyway create the DSM segment if one with
> the given name isn't found. IMO, found is an optional parameter for
> the caller. So, the assert(found) isn't necessary.

The autoprewarm change (0003) does use this variable.  I considered making
it optional (i.e., you could pass in NULL if you didn't want it), but I
didn't feel like the extra code in GetNamedDSMSegment() to allow this was
worth it so that callers could avoid creating a single bool.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: psql JSON output format
Next
From: "feichanghong"
Date:
Subject: Re: "ERROR: could not open relation with OID 16391" error was encountered when reindexing