Horton

Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>
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: 2012-06-26T11:50:21Z
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.

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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company