On 02/06/17 15:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Petr Jelinek
> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/17 15:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this?  Or who is picking this up?
>>>> /me knows precious little about Windows.
>>> I'm not going to be the one to commit this either, but seems like someone
>>> should.
>> The new code does not use any windows specific APIs or anything, it just
>> adds retry logic for reattaching when we do EXEC_BACKEND which seems to
>> be agreed way of solving this. I do have couple of comments about the
>> code though.
>> The new parameter retry_count in PGSharedMemoryReAttach() seems to be
>> only used to decide if to log reattach issues so that we don't spam log
>> when retrying, but this fact is not mentioned anywhere.
> No, it is to avoid calling free of memory which is not reserved on
> retry.  See the comment:
> + * On the first try, release memory region reservation that was made by
> + * the postmaster.
> Are you referring to the same function in sysv_shm.c, if so probably I
> can say refer the same API in win32_shmem.c or maybe add a similar
> comment there as well?

Yeah something like that would help, but my main confusion comes from
the fact that there is counter (and even named as such) but only
relevant difference is 0 and not 0. I'd like mention of that mainly
since I was confused by that on the first read.

  Petr Jelinek                  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:

Reply via email to