| 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>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2022-09-01 04:08:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrLBo2CKaCbmuxABSZ_9KTK6TE2v-o03634KieLLD=+zQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 16:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Does anyone have any objections to d5ee4db0e in its entirety being backpatched?
>
> It doesn't seem to be fixing any live bug in the back branches,
> but by the same token it's harmless.
I considered that an extension might use the Slab allocator with a
non-MAXALIGNED chunksize and might run into some troubles during
SlabCheck().
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-01 04:19:21 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-01 04:06:21 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |