Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Use NULL instead of 0 for pointer arguments.

  2. Fixed signed/unsigned mismatch in test_dsm_registry.

  3. Use NULL instead of 0 for 'arg' argument in dshash_create() calls.

  4. Introduce the dynamic shared memory registry.

  1. a couple of small cleanup patches for DSM-related code

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2025-06-04T19:48:14Z

    0001 changes test_dsm_registry.c to use PG_GETARG_INT32 and
PG_RETURN_INT32.  The installation script and the C code both used signed
integers, so I'm not sure why I used PG_GETARG/RETURN_UINT32 in commit
8b2bcf3.  I'm planning to back-patch this one to v17, where the DSM
registry was first introduced.

0002 follows commit 5fe08c0's example and changes some calls to
dshash_attach() and dsa_create_in_place() to use NULL instead of 0 for
pointer arguments.  I don't see any need to back-patch this one, but I also
don't see any need to wait for v19devel to commit it.

Any objections?

-- 
nathan

  2. Re: a couple of small cleanup patches for DSM-related code

    Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2025-06-04T20:53:06Z

    On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 12:48 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 0001 changes test_dsm_registry.c to use PG_GETARG_INT32 and
> PG_RETURN_INT32.  The installation script and the C code both used signed
> integers, so I'm not sure why I used PG_GETARG/RETURN_UINT32 in commit
> 8b2bcf3.  I'm planning to back-patch this one to v17, where the DSM
> registry was first introduced.

+1

> 0002 follows commit 5fe08c0's example and changes some calls to
> dshash_attach() and dsa_create_in_place() to use NULL instead of 0 for
> pointer arguments.  I don't see any need to back-patch this one, but I also
> don't see any need to wait for v19devel to commit it.

It seems okay to me to commit it to HEAD as it's a cosmetic change and
improves the consistency between v18 and 19.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

  3. Re: a couple of small cleanup patches for DSM-related code

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-06-05T01:20:09Z

    On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> It seems okay to me to commit it to HEAD as it's a cosmetic change and
> improves the consistency between v18 and 19.

Right.  It looks confusing to leave these at 0 rather than NULL as
they mean a pointer, for the same reasons as what you have documented
in 5fe08c006c82.  Doing that now or waiting for v19 does not make much
difference.  Anyway, there's always the less-noise-when-backpatching
argument, so if you apply that now on HEAD that's fine IMO.
--
Michael

  4. Re: a couple of small cleanup patches for DSM-related code

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2025-06-06T17:09:41Z

    Committed.

-- 
nathan