2015-09-17 14:06 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr > <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > > Please see attached for implementation of this approach. The most > > surprising thing is that it actually works :) > > It's cool to see these interesting ideas for using some of the code > I've been working on for the last couple of years. However, it seems > to me that a better design would avoid the use of shm_mq. Instead of > having the guy who asks the question create a DSM, have the guy who > sends back the answer create it. Then, he can just make the DSM big > enough to store the entire string. I think that's going to be a lot > more robust than what you have here. >
Please, can you explain what is wrong on using of shm_mq? It works pretty well now. There can be a contra argument, why don't use shm_mq, because it does data exchange between processes and this patch introduce new pattern for same thing. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
