2012-06-26 13:50 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote:
Well, I can make the registration interface similar to how LWLocks
are treated, but that doesn't avoid modification of the base_timeouts
array in case a new internal use case arises. Say:
#define USER_TIMEOUTS 4
int n_timeouts = TIMEOUT_MAX;
static timeout_params base_timeouts[TIMEOUT_MAX + USER_TIMEOUTS];
Since timeouts - unlike lwlocks - do not need to touch shared memory,
there's no need for a hard-coded limit here. You can just allocate
the array using MemoryContextAlloc(TopMemoryContext, ...) and enlarge
it as necessary. To avoid needing to modify the base_timeouts array,
you can just have internal callers push their entries into the array
during process startup using the same function call that an external
module would use.
I know, but it doesn't feel right to "register" static functionality.
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
