On 02/06/17 15:37, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Petr Jelinek > <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 01/06/17 15:25, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this? Or who is picking this up? >>> >>>> /me knows precious little about Windows. >>> >>> I'm not going to be the one to commit this either, but seems like someone >>> should. >>> >> >> The new code does not use any windows specific APIs or anything, it just >> adds retry logic for reattaching when we do EXEC_BACKEND which seems to >> be agreed way of solving this. I do have couple of comments about the >> code though. >> >> The new parameter retry_count in PGSharedMemoryReAttach() seems to be >> only used to decide if to log reattach issues so that we don't spam log >> when retrying, but this fact is not mentioned anywhere. >> > > No, it is to avoid calling free of memory which is not reserved on > retry. See the comment: > + * On the first try, release memory region reservation that was made by > + * the postmaster. > > Are you referring to the same function in sysv_shm.c, if so probably I > can say refer the same API in win32_shmem.c or maybe add a similar > comment there as well? >
Yeah something like that would help, but my main confusion comes from the fact that there is counter (and even named as such) but only relevant difference is 0 and not 0. I'd like mention of that mainly since I was confused by that on the first read. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
