On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > I'm slightly confused. Does that mean "just change it" or does that
>> > mean "add dsm_create_extended instead"?
>>
>> FWIW, I vote for "just change it". We change C-level
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I'm slightly confused. Does that mean "just change it" or does that
> > mean "add dsm_create_extended instead"?
>
> FWIW, I vote for "just change it". We change C-level APIs all the time,
> and this function has surely not got eit
On 2015-03-19 12:10:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
> >> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
> >> dsm_cr
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm slightly confused. Does that mean "just change it" or does that
> mean "add dsm_create_extended instead"?
FWIW, I vote for "just change it". We change C-level APIs all the time,
and this function has surely not got either the longevity nor the wide
usage that might arg
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
>> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
>> dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The
>> dsm
Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
> > dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
> > dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The
> > dsm_create() API is relat
Hi,
On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
> dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The
> dsm_create() API is relatively new at this point, so there p
Discussion on the parallel sequential scan thread has revealed the
need for a way to make dsm_create() return NULL, instead of failing,
when we hit the system-wide maximum on the number of dynamic shared
memory segments than can be created. I've developed a small patch for
this which I attach here
