On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2015-09-02 12:36 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr < > oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>: > >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2015-09-02 11:01 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr < >>> oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de>: >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But do we really need the slots mechanism? Would it not be OK to >>>>>> just let the LWLock do the sequencing of concurrent requests? Given that >>>>>> we only going to use one message queue per cluster, there's not much >>>>>> concurrency you can gain by introducing slots I believe. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I afraid of problems on production. When you have a queue related to >>>>> any process, then all problems should be off after end of processes. One >>>>> message queue per cluster needs restart cluster when some pathological >>>>> problems are - and you cannot restart cluster in production week, >>>>> sometimes >>>>> weeks. The slots are more robust. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but in your implementation the slots themselves don't have a >>>> queue/buffer. Did you intend to have a message queue per slot? >>>> >>> >>> The message queue cannot be reused, so I expect one slot per caller to >>> be used passing parameters, - message queue will be created/released by >>> demand by caller. >>> >> >> I don't believe a message queue cannot really be reused. What would stop >> us from calling shm_mq_create() on the queue struct again? >> > > you cannot to change recipient later > Well, maybe I'm missing something, but sh_mq_create() will just overwrite the contents of the struct, so it doesn't care about sender/receiver: only sh_mq_set_sender/receiver() do.
