Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:33:42 -0600
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry
Message-ID: <20231220153342.GA833819@nathanxps13>
References: <20231205034647.GA2705267@nathanxps13>
 <d725b5a7-5507-4630-9482-46f28c3bf0d1@postgrespro.ru>
 <3dcea2e9-c46d-4e4f-8371-9526d1aebc83@postgrespro.ru>
 <CA+Tgmobkqm0EfDw4jjn+Hbc=-5uh6nv8QTxHBj9bMpcQsfXV0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231219161444.GD831499@nathanxps13>
 <ZYIvcH8R83hEOKKe@paquier.xyz>
 <80cbdd55-8a9d-4472-b360-893309e1f6ef@postgrespro.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <80cbdd55-8a9d-4472-b360-893309e1f6ef@postgrespro.ru>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20231220153342.GA833819%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:02:58AM +0200, Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> In that case, maybe change the test case to make it closer to real-life
> usage - with locks and concurrent access (See attachment)?

I'm not following why we should make this test case more complicated.  It
is only intended to test the DSM registry machinery, and setting/retrieving
an atomic variable seems like a realistic use-case to me.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com