On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 3:06 AM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> I think that this patch is basically correct, except that it's not
>> correct to set mqh_counterparty_attached when receiver is still NULL.
>> Here's a v2 where I've attempted to correct that while preserving the
>> essence of your proposed
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 7:01 AM Japin Li wrote:
>
> I have a problem that is also related to shmem queue [1], however, I cannot
> reproduce it. How did you reproduce this problem?
>
>
I discovered this bug while working on an extension that makes use of the
shared memory queue facility. Not sure
Hi Robert,
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
>
> I think that this patch is basically correct, except that it's not
> correct to set mqh_counterparty_attached when receiver is still NULL.
> Here's a v2 where I've attempted to correct that while preserving the
> essence of your
On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 23:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:13 AM Pavan Deolasee
> wrote:
>> While testing on the current PG master, I noticed a problem between backends
>> communicating over a shared memory queue. I think `shm_mq_sendv()` fails to
>> flush the queue, even i
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:13 AM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> While testing on the current PG master, I noticed a problem between backends
> communicating over a shared memory queue. I think `shm_mq_sendv()` fails to
> flush the queue, even if `force_flush` is set to true, if the receiver is
> not y
