| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
| Date: | 2025-02-22 00:42:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGK98VNg2VtdBp46m2symeSB2zFiAkSX6Ow1aJ=D0VcZig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 1:30 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> procnumber.h seems like the right place, at least without a separate
> discussion of the ramifications of making it configurable, no? (I
> thought there were ideas about squeezing it down to 16 bits so you
> could jam two of 'em into an atomic uint32_t for list headers or
> something like that, off-topic here except to say that it seems to
> conflict with the idea of making it user-increasable?)
(Please ignore this comment, I'll comment on the other thread instead.
Sorry I hadn't seen your patches over there yet: when I started
talking about the definition and assertions around MAX_BACKENDS in
here, it had jumped out at me independently while trying to answer
your question about compile-time log10 stuff, because I also noticed
that we sucked even at codifying the log2 constraints.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-02-22 01:09:24 | a very significant fraction of the buildfarm is now pink |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-22 00:30:17 | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |