On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> When I wrote the dynamic shared memory patch, I used uint64 everywhere >> to measure sizes - rather than, as we do for the main shared memory >> segment, Size. This now seems to me to have been the wrong decision; >> I'm finding that it's advantageous to make dynamic shared memory >> behave as much like the main shared memory segment as is reasonably >> possible, and using Size facilitates the use of MAXALIGN(), >> TYPEALIGN(), etc. as well as things like add_size() and mul_size() >> which are just as relevant in the dynamic shared memory case as they >> are for the main shared memory segment. >> >> Therefore, I propose to apply the attached patch. > > +1.
OK, committed. > The simplicity of platform-independent type sizing had some attraction, > but not so much to justify this sort of friction with the rest of the system. That's a good way of putting it. I'm repeatedly learning - invariably the hard way - that everything the main shared memory segment is or does needs a parallel for dynamic shared memory, and the closer the parallel, the better. -- 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