Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoYq7U0hHgOEOqQgf=6cFXz_7Ab8QTRMFqFpLNfav0G4Ug@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized ent
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 2:03 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > I think 0002 was more complicated than necessary. Here's a second try. I haven't done a full review of this and I'm not sure whether you want me to spend more time on it, but something I notice about this version is that the PG_CATCH() blocks only contain dshash_delete_entry() calls. That seems good, because that means that all the other cleanup is being handled by transaction abort (assuming that the patch isn't buggy, which I haven't attempted to verify). However, it does make me wonder if we could also find a way to postpone adding the dshash entries so that we don't need to do anything in PG_CATCH() blocks at all. I'm guessing that the reason why that doesn't easily work is because you're relying on those locks to prevent multiple backends from doing the same initialization? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: