From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |
Date: | 2003-09-20 17:33:09 |
Message-ID: | 25732.1064079189@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> ... Initially I tried to increase MAX_ALIGNOF to 16, but
> the result didn't work:
You would need to do a full recompile and initdb to alter MAX_ALIGNOF.
However, if you are wanting to raise it past about 8, that's probably
not the way to go anyway; it would create padding wastage in too many
places. It would make more sense to allocate the buffers using a
variant ShmemAlloc that could be told to align this particular object
on an N-byte boundary. Then it costs you no more than N bytes in the
one place.
(BTW, I wonder whether there would be any win in allocating the buffers
on a 4K or 8K page boundary... do any kernels use virtual memory mapping
tricks to replace data copying in such cases?)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-09-20 18:15:15 | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |
Previous Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-09-20 17:26:43 | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-09-20 18:15:15 | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |
Previous Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-09-20 17:26:43 | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |