Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring.
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+USbmpo3tweXb8NJQ3zR5e9LREF6GVQm_WtqKLHDFZKA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring. (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent
LWLock refactoring.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
There will be necessary more changes than this. Orafce has some parts based on lw locks. I am able to compile it without any issue. But the lock mechanism is broken now - so impact on extensions will be higher. Have to do some research.if somebody would to use it for testing
https://github.com/orafce/orafce
https://github.com/orafce/orafce/commit/fff56ed7e17ed5d6f8e6b71591ff1a6d6ff12d79With last commit I am able to compile orafce without warnings, but installcheck is broken. It can be bug in orafce, but this code worked last 7 years.
One question regarding your latest commit in orafce:
- RequestAddinShmemSpace(SHMEMMSGSZ);
+#if PG_VERSION_NUM >= 90600
+
+ RequestNamedLWLockTranche("orafce", 1);
+
+#else
+
RequestAddinLWLocks(1);
+#endif
+
+ RequestAddinShmemSpace(SHMEMMSGSZ);
+
+#if PG_VERSION_NUM >= 90600
+
+ RequestNamedLWLockTranche("orafce", 1);
+
+#else
+
RequestAddinLWLocks(1);
+#endif
+
+ RequestAddinShmemSpace(SHMEMMSGSZ);
+
It seems you have moved request for shared memory
(RequestAddinShmemSpace()) after requesting locks, any reason
for same?
You don't need to change the request for shared memory.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: