On 2014-05-06 22:04:04 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 6 May 2014 20:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> FWIW, I vote for fixing (a) now but holding (b) for 9.5. > > > >> I guess I'll vote for applying both. I don't see a lot of risk, and I > >> think doing one with out the other is somewhat pointless. > > > > The difference is that there's not consensus about the details of the > > views ... as borne out by your next paragraph. > > > > Now admittedly, we could always redefine the views in 9.5, but > > I'd rather not be doing this sort of thing in haste. Something > > as user-visible as a system view really ought to have baked awhile > > before we ship it. Patch (a) is merely institutionalizing the > > expectation that DSM segments should have names, which is a much > > lower-risk bet. > > As long as all the functions are exposed to allow b) to run as an > extension, I don't see we lose anything by waiting a while.
They aren't exposed. It's touching implementation details in both shmem.c and dsm.c. I think that's actually fine. Imo it's not too bad if we don't get either in 9.4. It's not a critical feature.What I *would* like to avoid is a pointless API break between 9.4 and 9.5. Because I will push for the patch in 9.5 CF1... 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
