Horton

Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>

View thread
From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs@cybertec.at>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Date: 2012-06-26T12:03:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix Windows implementation of PGSemaphoreLock.

2012-06-26 13:50 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> Well, I can make the registration interface similar to how LWLocks
>> are treated, but that doesn't avoid modification of the base_timeouts
>> array in case a new internal use case arises. Say:
>>
>> #define USER_TIMEOUTS    4
>>
>> int    n_timeouts = TIMEOUT_MAX;
>> static timeout_params base_timeouts[TIMEOUT_MAX + USER_TIMEOUTS];
> Since timeouts - unlike lwlocks - do not need to touch shared memory,
> there's no need for a hard-coded limit here.  You can just allocate
> the array using MemoryContextAlloc(TopMemoryContext, ...) and enlarge
> it as necessary.  To avoid needing to modify the base_timeouts array,
> you can just have internal callers push their entries into the array
> during process startup using the same function call that an external
> module would use.

I know, but it doesn't feel right to "register" static functionality.

-- 
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
      http://www.postgresql.at/