On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, dear. That's rather embarrassing. > > Incremental (incremental-shm-mq.patch) and full (shm-mq-v3.patch) > patches attached.
OK, I have pushed the patches in this stack. I'm not sure we quite concluded the review back-and-forth but nobody really seems to have had serious objections to this line of attack, other than wanting some more comments which I have added. I don't doubt that there will be more things to tweak and tune here, and a whole lot more stuff that needs to be built using this infrastructure, but I don't think the code that's here is going to get better for remaining outside the tree longer. I decided not to change the dsm_toc patch to use functions instead of macros as Andres suggested; the struct definition would still have needed to be public, so any change would still need a recompile, at least if the size of the struct changed. It could be changed to work with a palloc'd chunk, but then you need to worry about context-lifespan memory leaks and it so didn't seem worth it. I can't imagine this having a lot of churn, anyway. -- 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