Horton

Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-06-06T19:51:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:31:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't really like making this a GUC, but what's the other option?
> It's reasonable for people to want to ask the server how many
> resources it will need to start, and -C is the only tool we have for
> that right now. So I feel like this is a fair thing to do.

Yeah, this is how I feel, too.

> I do think the name could use some more thought, though.
> semaphores_required would end up being the same kind of thing as
> shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages, but the names seem randomly
> different. If semaphores_required is right here, why isn't
> shared_memory_required used there? Seems more like we ought to call
> this semaphores or os_semaphores or num_semaphores or
> num_os_semaphores or something.

I'm fine with any of your suggestions.  If I _had_ to pick one, I'd
probably choose num_os_semaphores because it's the most descriptive.

-- 
nathan

Commits

  1. Introduce num_os_semaphores GUC.

  2. Fix documentation for POSIX semaphores.

  3. Fix documentation for System V semaphores.