From: | Remi Colinet <remi(dot)colinet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Patch v2] Make block and file size for WAL and relations defined at cluster creation |
Date: | 2018-01-04 22:07:30 |
Message-ID: | CADdR5nwH6zPaBBGQ_Hcd0AmDBynCAnu+iTRwpasKhXna0RiAJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-01-03 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>:
> Remi Colinet wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is version 2 of the patch to make the file and block sizes for WAL
> and
> > relations, run-time configurable at initdb.
>
> I don't think this works, since we have a rule that pallocs are
> prohibited within critical section and I see that your patch changes
> some stack-allocated variables to palloc'ed. For example I think the
> heap_page_prune changes should break some test or other.
>
Thank you for the head up.
For heap_page_prune() function, the critical section starts after the
palloc() call and ends before the pfree().
Unless critical sections can be nested, we are outside such section.
For the other palloc()/pfree() uses to replace the stack allocation, either
we already have palloc()/pfree() call.
The changes consist of:
- page = (Page) palloc(BLCKSZ);
+ page = (Page) palloc(rel_blck_size);
Only one change could be suspected. This is for the async.c command.
But the change is also done outside of a critical section.
> This patch is too massive to review.
>
I understand the point.
If the patch is clean enough and does not show any regression, I will split
it into smaller parts.
Regards
Remi
> --
> Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-04 22:12:41 | Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-04 22:01:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |