Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a thought about this. It seems to me that when it comes to
> backend-private memory, we release it even later: aborting the
> transaction does nothing, and we do it only later when we clean up the
> transaction. So I wonder whether we're going to find that we actually
> want to postpone reclaiming dynamic shared memory for even longer than
> this change would do. But in general, I think we've already
> established the principle that releasing memory needs to happen last,
> because every other resource that you might be using is tracked using
> data structures that are, uh, stored in memory. Therefore I suspect
> that this change is going in the right direction.
Hmm. That argument suggests that DSM cleanup shouldn't be part of
resowner cleanup at all, but should be handled as a bespoke, late
step in transaction cleanup, as memory-context release is.
Not sure if that's going too far or not. It would definitely be a big
change in environment for DSM-cleanup hooks.
regards, tom lane