public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]>
To: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data structures
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 18:42:58 +0530
Message-ID: <CAExHW5s6h=c_q2m72Nvyj1ghMEhPkOBkeN5Htn7YR=1BrNN-Sw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEze2WhMOHVgH2Xeyzx=VEk-Ta_YnQUqT+TdBiv5Lx8ESn2WZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAExHW5vM1bneLYfg0wGeAa=52UiJ3z4vKd3AJ72X8Fw6k3KKrg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+Tgmob7E3CGDoEBB3mwfk+v1CgcOG8yL0VHje2gy9Ts=e1Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobqwCHp1w6xkTJmZiq4C8Pr0O3tNUvSFZcAgYLkvF45bg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmob8ot7qam7a650nx_4jyEoFLs8s_kPMc1+EB7-dr56=WA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoauqYXm8iA3FGRAVKxYShUxWBiS_MSLmQpTrmO7wNHamw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5uTNWOSxJDWQAUnS0tZawob2_J3dRAtc67NHNZ98X4_xA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAExHW5t439y61YD9bc7d5wZWHp6J=M43Qu3eEZOBPguZML7o2A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAExHW5v5FVZbsO9sLzztMZ11C3hgGStE=HkkV2bQkCyncess4w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5tCC0T1ky=Jnq-AvMxa67Adaw7aQ4iQAO=BSdHcbSNBVg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5tS7GncN90oJWOSzW_3F1EHL9xwe59L7Req3nUVgmObUw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAEze2WhMOHVgH2Xeyzx=VEk-Ta_YnQUqT+TdBiv5Lx8ESn2WZA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:40 AM Matthias van de Meent
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 at 20:17, Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> While I do think it's an improvement over the current APIs, the
> improvement seems to be mostly concentrated in the RequestStruct/Hash
> department, with only marginal improvements in RegisterShmemCallbacks.
> I feel like it's missing the important part: I'd like
> direct-from-_PG_init() ShmemRequestStruct/Hash calls. If
> ShmemRequestStruct/Hash had a size callback as alternative to the size
> field (which would then be called after preload_libraries finishes)
> then that would be sufficient for most shmem allocations, and it'd
> simplify shmem management for most subsystems.
> We'd still need the shmem lifecycle hooks/RegisterShmemCallbacks to
> allow conditionally allocated shmem areas (e.g. those used in aio),
> but I think that, in general, we shouldn't need a separate callback
> function just to get started registering shmem structures.
>
> I also noticed that ShmemCallbacks.%_arg are generally undocumented,
> and I couldn't find any users in core (at the end of the patchset)
> that actually use the argument. Could it be I missed something?
>
> I don't understand the use of ShmemStructDesc. They generally/always
> are private to request_fn(), and their fields are used exclusively
> inside the shmem mechanisms, with no reads of its fields that can't
> already be deduced from context. Why do we need that struct
> everywhere?
My resizable shared memory structure patches use it as a handle to the
structure to be resized.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
view thread (82+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Better shared data structure management and resizable shared data structures
In-Reply-To: <CAExHW5s6h=c_q2m72Nvyj1ghMEhPkOBkeN5Htn7YR=1BrNN-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox