On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >> That's a very interesting idea. I've been thinking that we needed to >> preserve the property that new workers could attach to the shared >> memory segment at any time, but that might not be necessary in all >> case. We could introduce a new dsm operation that means "i promise no >> one else needs to attach to this segment". Further attachments would >> be disallowed by dsm.c regardless of the implementation in use, and >> dsm_impl.c would also be given a chance to perform >> implementation-specific operations, like shm_unlink and >> shmctl(IPC_RMID). This new operation, when used, would help to reduce >> the chance of leaks and perhaps catch other programming errors as >> well. >> >> What should we call it? dsm_finalize() is the first thing that comes >> to mind, but I'm not sure I like that. > > dsm_unlink() would mirror the underlying POSIX shm_unlink() call, and would > be familiar to anyone who understands how unlink() on a file works on Unix.
OK, let me work on that once this CommitFest is done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
