| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: NUMA shared memory interleaving |
| Date: | 2025-04-16 14:05:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobxuETJrJYEo9WA3FFc0D4C6mA5eaxyoUp9SVFbNZtvSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 5:14 AM Jakub Wartak
<jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Normal pgbench workloads tend to be not affected, as each backend
> tends to touch just a small partition of shm (thanks to BAS
> strategies). Some remaining questions are:
> 1. How to name this GUC (numa or numa_shm_interleave) ? I prefer the
> first option, as we could potentially in future add more optimizations
> behind that GUC.
I wonder whether the GUC needs to support interleaving between a
designated set of nodes rather than only being able to do all nodes.
For example, suppose someone is pinning the processes to a certain set
of NUMA nodes; perhaps then they wouldn't want to use memory from
other nodes.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Osipov | 2025-04-16 14:07:36 | Re: Built-in Raft replication |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-04-16 14:03:38 | Re: NUMA shared memory interleaving |