From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Two different defs of MAX_TUPLES_PER_PAGE |
Date: | 2005-09-02 04:06:26 |
Message-ID: | 10240.1125633986@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I found two different definitions of MAX_TUPLES_PER_PAGE.
> Which is reasonable? Or do they have another meaning?
Hmm, I think those were both my fault at different times :-(.
Right now I am thinking that they are both not quite right,
in particular it ought to be
#define MAX_TUPLES_PER_PAGE ((BLCKSZ - 1) / (MAXALIGN(offsetof(HeapTupleHeaderData, t_bits)) + sizeof(ItemIdData)) + 1)
That is, the heaptuple space is padded to a MAXALIGN boundary, but the
itemid that points to it isn't. Comments?
(I believe that both modules want a ceiling definition not a floor
definition, ie round up any fraction. The -1 / +1 trick is of course
just one way to get that.)
Also, is this something that should be in a common header file? If so
which one? BLCKSZ, HeapTupleHeaderData, and ItemIdData are all defined
in different places ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-09-02 04:34:37 | Re: Version number in psql banner |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-09-02 03:51:31 | Re: Additional background daemon (was: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples) |