Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 26459.1304352594@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c? (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bad COMPACT_ALLOC_CHUNK size in tsearch/spell.c?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> After chewing on that thought for a bit, it seems like an easy fix is to >>> modify AllocSetContextCreate (around line 390 in HEAD's aset.c) so that >>> allocChunkLimit is not just constrained to be less than maxBlockSize, >>> but significantly less than maxBlockSize --- say an eighth or so. >> well, +1 on any solution that doesn't push having to make assumptions >> about the allocator from the outside. �your fix seems to nail it >> without having to tinker around with the api which is nice. (plus you >> could just remove the comment). >> >> Some perfunctory probing didn't turn up any other cases like this. > patch attached -- I did no testing beyond make check though. I > suppose changes to the allocator are not to be take lightly and this > should really be tested in some allocation heavy scenarios. I did a bit of testing of this and committed it with minor adjustments. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: