On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 9:11 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 5:58 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/01/2026 11:56, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > > 0001: Adds assertions to InitShmemAccess() and InitShmemAllocation
> > > which indicate the conditions, EXEC_BACKEND and IsUnderPostmaster,
> > > these functions are expected to be called. I found these annotations
> > > to be useful when modifying these functions to handle multiple Shmem
> > > segments required by buffer pool resizing project [1].
> > >
> > > 0002: We use two different methods to pass ShmemIndex and ShmemLock
> > > respectively to new backends even though both the structures are
> > > allocated before creating named structures in the shared memory. This
> > > patch consistently uses the same method - passing via PGShmemHeader.
> > > Further the patch gets rid of InitShmemAllocation and moves that code
> > > inside InitShmemAccess() itself. Maybe that's overkill but at least we
> > > would be able to call InitShmemAllocation() from InitShmemAccess() and
> > > declare first as static within shmem.c. That way we avoid a minor risk
> > > of InitShmemAllocation() being called twice.
> > >
> > > We may achieve consistency by passing ShmemIndex through
> > > BackendParameter, but I haven't tried that.
> >
> > Hmm, I agree it's inconsistent currently. And I'd like to reduce the use
> > of BackendParameters, I don't like that mechanism.
> >
> > I don't much like moving the 'shmem_lock' pointer to PGShmemHeader
> > either though. It feels like a modularity violation, as no one else than
> > shmem.c should be accessing those fields. The same goes for the existing
> > 'index' and 'freeoffset' fields really.
> >
> > Also, does it make sense to have those fields in the "shim" shmem
> > segment that PGSharedMemoryCreate() creates? It's a little confusing, we
> > don't keep the 'freeoffset' in the shim up-to-date, for example.
> >
> > One idea is to move all those fields to another struct, see attached.
> > What do you think?
>
> This looks good. Good that we got rid of ShmemAllocUnlocked() too.
>
> A nitpick should content_offset be contentOffset (like totalSize) or
> content_offset (like dsm_control)? I am ok either way.
Huh, what was I looking at? there is no totalSize in PGShmemHeader.
The new member's name fits the style of other names. Ignore this
comment.
>
> A minor discomfort I have is ShmemBase, which is the starting address
> that the allocator will use, remains outside of ShmemAllocatorData().
> But it doesn't change once set so no need to "share" it through the
> memory and also that will create a self-referencing pointer within the
> shared memory. So it's fine.
>
I think we can just get rid of ShmemBase and ShmemEnd. Their values
can be derived from other variables at run time as done in the
attached patch (0002). Alternatively, we could add them to
ShmemAllocatorData itself to keep everything related to allocation
together. But it's not really needed.
I wanted to go as far as creating yet another structure to hold
ShmemSegHdr and ShmemAllocator together. Having a structure will help
in the shared buffer resizing project which needs multiple shared
memory segments. But it can wait.
What do you think?
Added this to CF https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6443/ to get
exercised by CFBot.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
