Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
От | Vadim Mikheev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37E640CC.5AC9C432@krs.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> writes: > > Also, all this ShmemIndex stuff seems to be useless > > (except of backend PID lookup but it's for sure > > should be in separate hash table). > > Have I got a deal for you ;-). I have uncommitted changes that add > a pointer (SHMEM_OFFSET that is) to each backend's PROC struct into > the per-backend info array that already existed in shmem.c. The > routines in shmem.c that searched for PROC structures are now in > sinval.c, and just do a simple scan of the ProcState array to find > the PROC structs. They should be a whole lot faster --- which is > good since these things run with spinlocks held... Nice. I have new member for PROC that should be searched sometime -:) Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: