Re: reorganize "Shared Memory and LWLocks" section of docs
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2024-01-12T17:23:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 09:46:50AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:12:28PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> """ >> Any registered shmem_startup_hook will be executed shortly after each >> backend attaches to shared memory. >> """ >> >> IMO the word "each" here can give the wrong impression as if there are >> certain guarantees about synchronization between backends. Maybe we >> should change this to simply "... will be executed shortly after >> [the?] backend attaches..." > > I see what you mean, but I don't think the problem is the word "each." I > think the problem is the use of passive voice. What do you think about > something like > > Each backend will execute the registered shmem_startup_hook shortly > after it attaches to shared memory. > >> """ >> should ensure that only one process allocates a new tranche_id >> (LWLockNewTrancheId) and initializes each new LWLock >> (LWLockInitialize). >> """ >> >> Personally I think that reminding the corresponding function name here >> is redundant and complicates reading just a bit. But maybe it's just >> me. > > Yeah, I waffled on this one. I don't mind removing it. Here is a new version of the patch with these changes. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
doc: Reorganize section for shared memory and LWLocks.
- 964152c476f2 17.0 landed