From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more) |
Date: | 2025-03-03 20:31:42 |
Message-ID: | bfca1010-e5f1-4e36-a461-61b6aad60c47@vondra.me |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/3/25 19:10, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-09-21 20:33:49 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I've finally pushed this, after many rounds of careful testing to ensure
>> no regressions, and polishing.
>
> One minor nit: I don't like that FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND is now non-constant
> while looking like a constant:
>
> #define FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND (FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to have non-function-like #defines that
> reference variables that can change from run to run.
>
Fair point, although it can't change "run to run" - not without a
restart. It's not a proper constant, of course, but it seemed close
enough. Yes, it might confuse people into thinking it's a constant, or
is there some additional impact?
The one fix I can think of is making it look more like a function,
possibly just like this:
#define FastPathLockSlotsPerBackend() \
(FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)
Or do you have another suggestion?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-03-03 20:48:45 | Re: Flaky 003_start_stop.pl test |
Previous Message | Alexandra Wang | 2025-03-03 20:22:49 | Re: SQL:2023 JSON simplified accessor support |