From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |
Date: | 2017-08-16 17:44:57 |
Message-ID: | 20170816174457.owwljarcoa5h7xuy@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-16 13:40:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I can confirm that on dromedary, that regression test case is attempting
> > to create a TOC with a not-well-aligned size: 93268 = 0x16c54 bytes.
>
> ... although, on closer look, it still seems like we have a fundamental
> bit of schizophrenia here, because on this machine
>
> $ grep ALIGN pg_config.h
> #define ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 4
> #define ALIGNOF_INT 4
> #define ALIGNOF_LONG 4
> #define ALIGNOF_LONG_LONG_INT 4
> #define ALIGNOF_SHORT 2
> #define MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 4
>
> Basically, therefore, ISTM that it is not a good thing that the atomics
> code thinks it can rely on 8-byte-aligned data when the entire rest of
> the system believes that 4-byte alignment is enough for anything.
That's a hardware requirement, we can't do much about it. Several
[micro-]architectures don't support unaligned atomic 8 byte writes.
> I was wondering why the shm_toc code was using BUFFERALIGN and not
> MAXALIGN, and I now suspect that the answer is "it's an entirely
> undocumented kluge to make the atomics code not crash on 32-bit
> machines, so long as nobody puts a pg_atomic_uint64 anywhere except in
> a shm_toc".
I don't think there were any atomics in affected code until earlier
today... And given it didn't work for shm_toc anyway, I'm not quite
following.
> I'm not sure that that's good enough, and I'm damn sure that it
> shouldn't be undocumented.
8 byte alignment would be good enough, so BUFFERALIGN ought to be
sufficient. But it'd be nicer to have a separate more descriptive knob.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-16 17:47:23 | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-16 17:44:28 | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |