On 31/10/2025 19:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 26/08/2025 10:11, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 3:11 PM Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 9:10 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is this change correct? Was there any reason to leave it like that in
e25626677f8076eb3ce94586136c5464ee154381? Or was it just something
that didn't fit in that commit?
We/I just missed that opportunity when ripping that stuff out. It
sounds like we might need a comment-only patch to back-patch to 18
that would say something like "this is done here for historical
reasons" so as not to confuse people with obsolete nonsense, and a
follow up patch for master to do things in a more straightforward way
as you said.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Attached patchset has two patches
0001 - backpatchable, adds the comment.
0002 - actual code changes for master. The changes are described in
the commit message in detail. I think ProcGlobalSemas() too, can be
converted into a macro or can be declared static inline, but I haven't
done so. I think it eliminates all the asymmetric handling of
semaphores.
If the change looks safe and useful, I will create CF entry for it so
that the patch gets tested on all platforms, and thus with different
definitions of PGReserveSemaphores().
+1, will review, thanks!
Added a CF entry so that CI tests the changes on many platforms.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5997/
Looks good to me. I can commit this, but since Thomas said he'd review
it, I'll give him a few days for that if he finds the time.
Committed with minor changes: I made the comments a little less
detailed, updated the comment above CalculateShmemSize() now that it
doesn't have the 'num_semaphores' argument anymore, and made
ShmemAllocUnlocked static. Thanks!
- Heikki
