Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobWTmHcv9L_AgB5Vu9vQ34LBrdp8tD_O28kxDn74xhXmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 3:21 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a rebased version of the patch for v18 that adds a runtime-computed
> GUC.  As I noted earlier, there still isn't a consensus on this approach.

I don't really like making this a GUC, but what's the other option?
It's reasonable for people to want to ask the server how many
resources it will need to start, and -C is the only tool we have for
that right now. So I feel like this is a fair thing to do.

I do think the name could use some more thought, though.
semaphores_required would end up being the same kind of thing as
shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, but the names seem randomly
different. If semaphores_required is right here, why isn't
shared_memory_required used there? Seems more like we ought to call
this semaphores or os_semaphores or num_semaphores or
num_os_semaphores or something.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Tachoires
Date:
Subject: Re: Compress ReorderBuffer spill files using LZ4
Next
From: Julien Tachoires
Date:
Subject: Re: Compress ReorderBuffer spill files using LZ4