Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Simon Riggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should consider a parameter for PGSharedMemoryDetach() ?
> Yeah, maybe. It seems like a possible modularity violation, because
> the PGSharedMemory... stuff has heretofore not needed to know anything
> about DSM, and apart from this one function, it still wouldn't.
That was exactly the reason we rejected that design upthread.
PGSharedMemoryDetach is specific to the main shmem segment, and in fact
has multiple OS-dependent implementations.
You could make an argument for inventing some new wrapper function that
calls both PGSharedMemoryDetach and dsm_detach_all, but I don't believe
that the existing flavors of that function should know about DSM.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
