On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 06:22:19PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 4:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I went through and check the original proposal [1] to see if any use >> case is mentioned there, but nothing related has been discussed. I >> couldn't think of much use of this facility except maybe for something >> like parallelizing correalated sub-queries where the size of outer var >> can change across executions and we might need to resize the initially >> allocated memory. This is just a wild thought, I don't have any >> concrete idea about this. Having said that, I don't object to >> removing this especially because the implementation doesn't seem to be >> complete. In future, if someone needs such a facility, they can first >> develop a complete version of this API. > > Thanks for looking into that. Here's a pair of draft patches to > disable and then remove dsm_resize() and dsm_map().
Hm. Don't we need to worry about anybody potentially using these APIs in a custom module on platforms where it was actually working? I imagine that their reaction is not going be nice if any code breaks suddenly after a minor release. No issues with removing the interface on HEAD of course. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
