| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
| Date: | 2017-02-15 17:14:42 |
| Message-ID: | 16687.1487178882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that Andres comments here were largely ignored:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160822021747.u5bqx2xwwjzac5u5@alap3.anarazel.de
>> He was suggesting to increase the struct size to 16 bytes rather than
>> going all the way up to 128. Did anybody test this?
> So, I think that going up to 128 bytes can't really make sense. If
> that's the best-performing solution here, then maybe what we ought to
> be doing is reverting the PGXACT/PGPROC separation, sticking these
> critical members at the beginning, and padding the whole PGXACT out to
> a multiple of the cache line size.
Yes. That separation was never more than a horribly ugly kluge.
I would love to see it go away. But keeping it *and* padding
PGXACT to something >= the size of PGPROC borders on insanity.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-15 17:16:36 | Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_proc comment grammar |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-15 17:11:18 | Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning |