On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 06:22:19PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I went through and check the original proposal [1] to see if any use
>> case is mentioned there, but nothing related has been discussed. I
>> couldn't think of much use of this facility except maybe for something
>> like parallelizing correalated sub-queries where the size of outer var
>> can change across executions and we might need to resize the initially
>> allocated memory. This is just a wild thought, I don't have any
>> concrete idea about this. Having said that, I don't object to
>> removing this especially because the implementation doesn't seem to be
>> complete. In future, if someone needs such a facility, they can first
>> develop a complete version of this API.
>
> Thanks for looking into that. Here's a pair of draft patches to
> disable and then remove dsm_resize() and dsm_map().
Hm. Don't we need to worry about anybody potentially using these APIs
in a custom module on platforms where it was actually working? I
imagine that their reaction is not going be nice if any code breaks
suddenly after a minor release. No issues with removing the interface
on HEAD of course.
--
Michael