Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28336.1073918535@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question (Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com> writes: > Are these comments still true? Specifically, is it necessary to call > CreateLWLocks before InitShmemIndex? I think it used to be, but then the > ShmemIndexLock got made into a separate spinlock in its own right. I think the only dependency was that ShmemIndexLock was an LWLock. > It doesn't appear to be true, and I'd like to rearrange this section of the > code, You have broken stuff before by rearranging the sequence of operations... what exactly have you got in mind here? > ... a possible solution to a Win32 shmem/semaphore bootstrap > problem (postgres semaphores under Win32 uses ShmemIndex which uses > spinlocks which use shared memory which use semaphores which ...). The correct solution to that seems to lie elsewhere, ie, not use semaphores for spinlocks. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: