| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2022-08-30 00:22:55 |
| Message-ID: | b48f3a16-9e11-7663-3083-f2d28b4184f8@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/29/22 23:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I've read over the emails and glanced at Tomas' patch. I think that
>> seems good. I think I'd rather see us do that than pad the struct out
>> further as Tomas' method is more aligned to what we do in aset.c
>> (ALLOC_BLOCKHDRSZ) and generation.c (Generation_BLOCKHDRSZ).
>
>> I can adjust Tomas' patch to #define Slab_BLOCKHDRSZ
>
> WFM
>
Same here.
I also suggested doing a similar check in MemoryChunkGetPointer, so that
we catch the issue earlier - right after we allocate the chunk. Any
opinion on that? With an assert only in GetMemoryChunkMethodID() we'd
notice the issue much later, when it may not be obvious if it's a memory
corruption or what. But maybe it's overkill.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-30 00:33:56 | Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-08-30 00:19:56 | Re: [DOCS] Stats views and functions not in order? |