On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 8:10 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > So we can fix this by:
> > 1. Using a relative pointer value other than 0 to represent a null
> > pointer. Andres suggested (Size) -1.
> > 2. Not storing the free page manager for the DSM in the main shared
> > memory segment at byte offset 0.
> > 3. Dropping the assertion while loudly singing "la la la la la la".
>
> I'm definitely down on #3, because that just leaves the ambiguity
> in place to bite somewhere else in future. #1 would work as long
> as nobody expects memset-to-zero to produce null relptrs, but that
> doesn't seem very nice either.
>
> On the whole, wasting MAXALIGN worth of memory seems like the least bad
> alternative, but I wonder if we ought to do it right here as opposed
> to somewhere in the DSM code proper. Why is this DSM space not like
> other DSM spaces in starting with a TOC?
This FPM isn't in a DSM. (It happens to have DSMs *inside it*,
because I'm using it as a separate DSM allocator: instead of making
them with dsm_impl.c mechanisms, this one recycles space from the main
shmem area). I view FPM as a reusable 4kb page-based memory allocator
that could have many potential uses, not as a thing that must live
inside another thing with a TOC. The fact that it uses the relptr
thing makes it possible to use FPM inside DSMs too, but that doesn't
mean it has to be used inside a DSM.
I vote for #1.
