| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Date: | 2022-10-06 19:23:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2922295.1665084196@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-10-06 15:10:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> Maybe worth printing the method ID as well?
>> I doubt it'd be useful.
> I was thinking it could be useful to see whether the bits are likely to be the
> result of wipe_mem(). But I guess for that we should print the whole byte,
> rather than just the method. Perhaps not worth it.
I think printing the whole int64 header word would be appropriate if
we were hoping for something like that. Still not sure if it's useful.
On the other hand, if control gets there then you are probably in need
of debugging help ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-06 20:05:13 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-10-06 19:14:54 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |