On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:32:22 -0400 > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev >> <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> > Yes, that is because I tried to go with current convention working >> > with shmem in Postgres (there are one function that returns the >> > size and others that initialize that memory). But I like your >> > suggestion about API functions, in that case number of tranches and >> > locks will be known during the initialization. >> >> I also want to leave the door open to tranches that are registered >> after initialization. At that point, it's too late to put a tranche >> in shared memory, but you can still use DSM. > > We can hold some extra space in LWLockTrancheArray, add some > function for unregistering a tranche, and reuse free items in > LWLockTrancheId later.
We could, but since that would be strictly more annoying and less flexible than what we've already got, why would we? -- 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
