On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 09:43:26AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Good idea. Here's a new version of the patch. If CI is happy with it,
> I'll go ahead and commit it.
Committed.
--
nathan
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 06:52:48AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 05:56:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No objection here. As a small improvement, perhaps you could swap
>> around the code in LWLockShmemSize so that the order in which it
>> considers size contributions mat
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 05:56:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > In lwlock.c, uses of LWLockCounter must first calculate its address in
> > shared memory with something like this:
>
> > LWLockCounter = (int *) ((char *) MainLWLockArray - sizeof(int));
>
> > This ap
Nathan Bossart writes:
> In lwlock.c, uses of LWLockCounter must first calculate its address in
> shared memory with something like this:
> LWLockCounter = (int *) ((char *) MainLWLockArray - sizeof(int));
> This appears to have been started by commit 82e861f in order to fix
> EXEC_BACKEND
