Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE
Date
Msg-id 8317.1176273489@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Question about SHM_QUEUE  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> I have a question about SHM_QUEUE. Why do we need this component?

It's a hangover from Berkeley days that no one has felt a need to remove
yet.  The convention back then was that shared memory might be mapped to
different addresses in different processes.  We've since adopted the
assumption that everyone will see the same addresses, but we have not
made any attempt to eradicate the old approach everywhere.

> Then, can we replace SHM_QUEUE by a pointer-based double-linked list?
> It will be an "intrusive" version of Dllist.

What exactly will you gain by it?  I'm not inclined to fool with that
code for trivial reasons ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavan Deolasee"
Date:
Subject: Re: CIC and deadlocks
Next
From: "Marko Kreen"
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] uuid type not documented