From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add bump memory context type and use it for tuplesorts |
Date: | 2024-03-25 20:44:03 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvqjetv2pBSBrbA-_Z2DM8oA3Ay0y6GxDYPie2s+Ta2ALQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 03:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I agree with this completely. However, the current design for chunk
> headers is mighty restrictive about how many kinds of contexts we can
> have. We need to open that back up.
Andres mentioned how we could do this in [1]. One possible issue with
that is that slab.c has no external chunks so would restrict slab to
512MB chunks. I doubt that's ever going to realistically be an issue.
That's just not a good use case for slab, so I'd be ok with that.
> Could we move the knowledge of exactly which context type it is out
> of the per-chunk header and keep it in the block header? This'd
> require that every context type have a standardized way of finding
> the block header from a chunk. We could repurpose the existing
> MemoryContextMethodID bits to allow having a small number of different
> ways, perhaps.
I wasn't 100% clear on your opinion about using 010 vs expanding the
bit-space. Based on the following it sounded like you were not
outright rejecting the idea of consuming the 010 pattern.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 at 12:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If we do kick this can down the road, then I concur with eating 010
> next, as it seems the least likely to occur in glibc-malloced
> chunks.
David
[1] https://postgr.es/m/20240217200845.ywlwenjrlbyoc73v@awork3.anarazel.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-03-25 21:04:31 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |
Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-25 20:40:55 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |