On 2013-12-11 12:37:56 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Dec11, 2013, at 11:47 , Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-12-11 11:42:25 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> > Yes (although there's C11 stuff to do equivalent stuff afair) - I was
> > thinking of only doing it for compilers we support that dark mag
On Dec11, 2013, at 11:47 , Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-11 11:42:25 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Dec5, 2013, at 15:44 , Andres Freund wrote:
>>> There might be some ugly compiler dependent magic we could do. Depending
>>> on how we decide to declare offsets. Like (very, very roughly)
>>
On 2013-12-11 11:42:25 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Dec5, 2013, at 15:44 , Andres Freund wrote:
> > There might be some ugly compiler dependent magic we could do. Depending
> > on how we decide to declare offsets. Like (very, very roughly)
> >
> > #define relptr(type, struct_name, varname) un
On Dec5, 2013, at 15:44 , Andres Freund wrote:
> There might be some ugly compiler dependent magic we could do. Depending
> on how we decide to declare offsets. Like (very, very roughly)
>
> #define relptr(type, struct_name, varname) union struct_name##_##varname{ \
>type relptr_type; \
>
On 2013-12-05 10:17:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Why? Lots of people have written lots of programs that do just that.
> >
> > Well, but we're a database, not a generic programming library ;)
>
> I think we're arguably both.
Fair enough
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why? Lots of people have written lots of programs that do just that.
>
> Well, but we're a database, not a generic programming library ;)
I think we're arguably both.
> But what's your alternative if you have a shared_palloc() like thingy?
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 06:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> During development of the dynamic shared memory facility, Noah and I
>> spent a lot of time arguing about whether it was practical to ensure
>> that a dynamic shared memory segment got mapped
On 2013-12-05 15:44:34 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-05 07:44:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > And then I thought, boy, it sucks
> > not to be able to declare what kind of a thing we're pointing *at*
> > here, but apart from using C++ I see no solution to that problem. I
> > guess we co
On 2013-12-05 07:44:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On 2013-12-04 23:32:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> But I'm also learning painfully that this kind of thing only goes so
> >> far. For example, I spent some time lookin
On 2013-12-05 15:57:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As a side-note, I've been thinking that we don't really need same-address
> mapping for shared_buffers either. Getting rid of it wouldn't buy us
> anything right now, but if we wanted e.g to make shared_buffers changeable
> without a restart
On 12/05/2013 06:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
During development of the dynamic shared memory facility, Noah and I
spent a lot of time arguing about whether it was practical to ensure
that a dynamic shared memory segment got mapped at the same address in
every backend that used it.
My vote goes fo
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 2013-12-04 23:32:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> But I'm also learning painfully that this kind of thing only goes so
>> far. For example, I spent some time looking at what it would take to
>> provide a dynamic shared memory
Hi Robert,
On 2013-12-04 23:32:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I'm also learning painfully that this kind of thing only goes so
> far. For example, I spent some time looking at what it would take to
> provide a dynamic shared memory equivalent of palloc/pfree, a facility
> that I feel fairly s
During development of the dynamic shared memory facility, Noah and I
spent a lot of time arguing about whether it was practical to ensure
that a dynamic shared memory segment got mapped at the same address in
every backend that used it. The argument went something like this:
Me: We'll never be ab
14 matches
Mail list logo
