Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYiWVvgUrDBJXVG9Crpg=s=Y1BLhMwVd1RZQOq5aF4Ctw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries  (Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:33 AM Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I'm working on the (b) approach. I thought about a priority queue
> structure. There no such ready structure within PostgreSQL sources
> except binaryheap.c, but it isn't for concurrent algorithms.

I don't see why you need a priority queue or, really, any other fancy
data structure.  It seems like all you need to do is somehow set it up
so that a backend which doesn't use a dictionary for a while will
dsm_detach() the segment.  Eventually an unused dictionary will have
no remaining references and will go away.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Unnecessary checks for new rows by some RI trigger functions?