From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
Date: | 2017-11-26 09:33:01 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jKRt0Yenw8Ln4J4u=UsDVkCBgPmjDE2buYou-H9VTMZjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 26 November 2017 at 08:46, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Instead I propose that we should make sure that the palloc request size
>> for XLogReaderState->main_data is always maxalign'd. The existing
>> behavior in DecodeXLogRecord of palloc'ing it only just barely big
>> enough for the current record seems pretty brain-dead performance-wise
>> even without this consideration. Generally, if we need to enlarge
>> that buffer, we should enlarge it significantly, IMO.
>
> I've confirmed that the attached is sufficient to stop the valgrind crash
> on my machine. But as I said, I think we should be more aggressive at
> resizing the buffer, to reduce resize cycles. I'm inclined to start out
> with a buffer size of 128 or 256 or so bytes and double it when needed.
> Anybody have a feeling for a typical size for the "main data" part
> of a WAL record?
We reuse the buffer and only pfree/palloc when we need to enlarge the
buffer, so not sure we need to do the doubling thing and it probably
doesn't matter what the typical size is.
So I think we're just good to go with your patch.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-26 09:33:42 | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-25 23:15:46 | pgsql: Update MSVC build process for new timezone data. |