On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote: > Well, I can make the registration interface similar to how LWLocks > are treated, but that doesn't avoid modification of the base_timeouts > array in case a new internal use case arises. Say: > > #define USER_TIMEOUTS 4 > > int n_timeouts = TIMEOUT_MAX; > static timeout_params base_timeouts[TIMEOUT_MAX + USER_TIMEOUTS];
Since timeouts - unlike lwlocks - do not need to touch shared memory, there's no need for a hard-coded limit here. You can just allocate the array using MemoryContextAlloc(TopMemoryContext, ...) and enlarge it as necessary. To avoid needing to modify the base_timeouts array, you can just have internal callers push their entries into the array during process startup using the same function call that an external module would use. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
