Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25732.1064079189@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer (Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> writes: > ... Initially I tried to increase MAX_ALIGNOF to 16, but > the result didn't work: You would need to do a full recompile and initdb to alter MAX_ALIGNOF. However, if you are wanting to raise it past about 8, that's probably not the way to go anyway; it would create padding wastage in too many places. It would make more sense to allocate the buffers using a variant ShmemAlloc that could be told to align this particular object on an N-byte boundary. Then it costs you no more than N bytes in the one place. (BTW, I wonder whether there would be any win in allocating the buffers on a 4K or 8K page boundary... do any kernels use virtual memory mapping tricks to replace data copying in such cases?) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: