MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAExHW5vM1bneLYfg0wGeAa=52UiJ3z4vKd3AJ72X8Fw6k3KKrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a37c2e3-619d-4816-84d7-0b27e3e6797f@iki.fi>
 <CAExHW5s9Vp+-vJi020UJ+otyccBBo7eT1g6bttdRKL6HAvscyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mlsruptoxgm2nqtdfyfsowjklzxl5zltsjb3y5bmywtigm474l@5tsonk4t3kia>
 <CAExHW5uEK+eeG7e2g6uWh7POrFpfp+dqfaa=_3miMN17zgeaJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5vz+PUHHUuzGRwtyx-mPLQk3nCZXxrFqnruRadEFrO5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5so6VSxBC-1V=35229Z1+dw5vhw8HxHg9ry7UzceKcXzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <26c766d6-db0f-43d3-a618-44f8d40a3121@iki.fi>
 <CA+TgmoaoSha9KnSdrA7DDMYD9+Uor4OPEaQ88bbEC3QuVE5Mcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <62b8dc23-8f6a-4cac-91ff-f74bb5bc159a@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <62b8dc23-8f6a-4cac-91ff-f74bb5bc159a@iki.fi>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:56:18 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoboxAaS6MCRf__LRhf8Ji3B0O9_=d7KzRS12QhOuocnTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data
 structures
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, chaturvedipalak1911@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoboxAaS6MCRf__LRhf8Ji3B0O9_%3Dd7KzRS12QhOuocnTQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:41=E2=80=AFPM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi=
> wrote:
> shmem_startup_hook() is too late. The shmem structs need to be
> registered at postmaster startup before the shmem segment is allocated,
> so that we can calculate the total size needed.

Sorry, I meant shmem_request_hook.

> I'm currently leaning towards _PG_init(), except for allocations that
> depend on MaxBackends. For those, you can install a shmem_request_hook
> that sets the size in the descriptor. In other words, you can leave the
> 'size' as empty in _PG_init(), but set it later in the shmem_request_hook=
.

Why can't you just do the whole thing later?

> Another option is to add a new bespoken callback in the descriptor for
> such size adjustments, which would get called at the same time as
> shmem_request_hook. That might be a little more ergonomic, there would
> no longer be any need for extensions to use the old
> shmem_request/startup_hooks with the new ShmemRegisterStruct() mechanism.

Yeah, worth considering.

> Except that you'd still need them for RequestNamedLWLockTranche(). I
> wonder if we should recommend extensions to embed the LWLock struct into
> their shared memory struct and use the LWLockInitialize() and
> LWLockNewTrancheId() functions instead. That fits the new
> ShmemRegisterStruct() API a little better than RequestNamedLWLockTranche(=
).

Yeah, I think RequestNamedLWLockTranche() might be fine if you just
need LWLocks, but if you need a bunch of resources, putting them all
into the same chunk of memory seems cleaner.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com