Re: pg_shmem_allocations view

On 6 May 2014 20:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> FWIW, I vote for fixing (a) now but holding (b) for 9.5.
>
>> I guess I'll vote for applying both. I don't see a lot of risk, and I
>> think doing one with out the other is somewhat pointless.
>
> The difference is that there's not consensus about the details of the
> views ... as borne out by your next paragraph.
>
> Now admittedly, we could always redefine the views in 9.5, but
> I'd rather not be doing this sort of thing in haste. Something
> as user-visible as a system view really ought to have baked awhile
> before we ship it. Patch (a) is merely institutionalizing the
> expectation that DSM segments should have names, which is a much
> lower-risk bet.

As long as all the functions are exposed to allow b) to run as an
extension, I don't see we lose anything by waiting a while.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services