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