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.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: