Aleksey Demakov <adema...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> You're right, but that doesn't mean that the community is going to take >> much interest in an unportable replacement for code that already exists.
> Excuse me, what code already exists? As far as I understand, we > compare the approach taken in my code against Robert's code that > is not yet available to the community. DSM already exists, and for many purposes its lack of a within-a-shmem-segment dynamic allocator is irrelevant; the same purpose is served (with more speed, more reliability, and less code) by releasing the whole DSM segment when no longer needed. The DSM segment effectively acts like a memory context, saving code from having to account precisely for every single allocation it makes. I grant that having a dynamic allocator added to DSM will support even more use-cases. What I'm not convinced of is that we need a dynamic allocator within the fixed-size shmem segment. Robert already listed some reasons why that's rather dubious, but I'll add one more: any leak becomes a really serious bug, because the only way to recover the space is to restart the whole database instance. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers