| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |
| Date: | 2014-05-05 19:12:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20140505191215.GD27691@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-05 15:09:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm quite in favor of having something like this for the main shared
> > memory segment, but I think that's 9.5 material at this point.
>
> If you're prepared to break the current APIs later to add a name parameter
> (which would have to be required, if it's to be useful at all), then sure,
> put the question off till 9.5.
I understood Robert to mean that it's too late for my proposed view for
9.4 - and I agree - but I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should
add a name parameter to the dsm API *now*. We can just Assert() that it's
nonzero if we don't think it's useful for now.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-05 19:28:57 | Re: Recursive ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages not safe |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-05 19:09:46 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |