Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 31255.1511497154@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz> writes: > On 11/23/2017 11:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I pushed a patch that computes how much padding to add and adds it. >> (It might not really work if size_t and void * are different sizes, >> because then there could be additional padding in the struct; but >> that seems very unlikely.) > Thanks. Do we need to do something similar to the other memory contexts? > I see Slab does not do this at all (assuming it's not necessary), and > AllocSet does this in a different way (which seems a bit strange). Hm ... the coding in AllocSet is ancient and I have to say that I don't like it as well as what I put into generation.c. We could not have done it in that way at the time, because (IIRC) we did not have constant macros for SIZEOF_SIZE_T, and maybe not SIZEOF_VOID_P either --- and you need constant macros in order to do the #if calculation, because sizeof() does not work in preprocessor expressions. But we have 'em now, so I'm tempted to change aset.c to match generation.c. As for SlabChunk, I think that's fine as-is (except I wonder why the "block" field is declared "void *" rather than "SlabBlock *"). Since the contents are fixed at two pointer fields, it's impossible that there's any unexpected padding in there --- the struct size is basically guaranteed to be 2 * sizeof(pointer). Which makes it either 8 or 16 bytes, either one of which is certain to be a multiple of MAXALIGN. So I think the StaticAssert that that's true is plenty sufficient in that case. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: