Message-ID: <e6632ba1-4f48-4dfe-80d7-06c0253cc720@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:31:28 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: pgsql: Convert all remaining subsystems to use the new shmem
 allocation
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <E1w9WsZ-0039AO-1J@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <adNHcBVJO5gIOp1l@paquier.xyz>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <adNHcBVJO5gIOp1l@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e6632ba1-4f48-4dfe-80d7-06c0253cc720%40iki.fi>
Precedence: bulk

On 06/04/2026 08:41, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2026 at 11:27:44PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Convert all remaining subsystems to use the new shmem allocation API
>>
>> This removes all remaining uses of ShmemInitStruct() and
>> ShmemInitHash() from built-in code.
>>
>> src/backend/utils/misc/injection_point.c           |  57 ++++---
> 
> drongo, that compiles without USE_INJECTION_POINTS, is complaining
> about this bit around line 240:
> const ShmemCallbacks InjectionPointShmemCallbacks = {
> #ifdef USE_INJECTION_POINTS
>      .request_fn = InjectionPointShmemRequest,
>      .init_fn = InjectionPointShmemInit,
> #endif
> };
> 
> Link:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=drongo&dt=2026-04-06%2004%3A09%3A20
> And the error:
> ../pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/injection_point.c(240): error C2059: syntax error: '}'

Oh, I didn't realize that that an empty initializer isn't allowed.

> Why not putting the whole InjectionPointShmemCallbacks inside a
> USE_INJECTION_POINTS block?  We should not care about shmem
> allocations when --enable-injection-points is not used.
> 
> subsystemlist.h expects the callbacks to always be defined, so your
> intention is to have no ifdefs there.  Still, it seems a bit pointless
> to me to define callbacks we are not going to use depending on the
> build options evoked?  Attached is one idea, which I doubt you'll
> like.  :)

Looks perfectly fine to me, I'll push that. Thanks!

- Heikki