| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <sochakraborty(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Accounting |
| Date: | 2019-10-04 14:43:18 |
| Message-ID: | 11238.1570200198@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 10:26 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Yeah, I think that's an oversight. Maybe there's a reason why Jeff
>> used int64, but I can't think of any.
> I had chosen a 64-bit value to account for the situation Tom mentioned:
> that, in theory, Size might not be large enough to represent all
> allocations in a memory context. Apparently, that theoretical situation
> is not worth being concerned about.
Well, you could also argue it the other way: maybe in our children's
time, int64 won't be as wide as Size. (Yeah, I know that sounds
ridiculous, but needing pointers wider than 32 bits was a ridiculous
idea too when I started in this business.)
The committed fix seems OK to me except that I think you should've
also changed MemoryContextMemAllocated() to return Size.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-04 14:51:07 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-10-04 14:35:59 | Remove some code for old unsupported versions of MSVC |