Re: Minor optimisation of XLogInsert()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minor optimisation of XLogInsert()
Date: 2011-11-17 04:11:02
Message-ID: 584.1321503062@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:
> (I wonder if we shouldn't just align every shared memory allocation to
> 64 or 128 bytes. It wouldn't waste much memory and it would make us
> much more resistant to performance changes caused by minor
> modifications to the shared memory layout.)

I could get behind this idea if we had a reasonably clear idea of the
hardware's cache line width, but AFAIK there is no portable way to
identify that. (This is a pretty fatal objection to Simon's original
patch as well...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2011-11-17 04:16:18 Re: FlexLocks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-11-17 03:54:14 Re: ISN was: Core Extensions relocation