Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+jKRt0Yenw8Ln4J4u=UsDVkCBgPmjDE2buYou-H9VTMZjw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator
|
| Список | pgsql-committers |
On 26 November 2017 at 08:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> Instead I propose that we should make sure that the palloc request size >> for XLogReaderState->main_data is always maxalign'd. The existing >> behavior in DecodeXLogRecord of palloc'ing it only just barely big >> enough for the current record seems pretty brain-dead performance-wise >> even without this consideration. Generally, if we need to enlarge >> that buffer, we should enlarge it significantly, IMO. > > I've confirmed that the attached is sufficient to stop the valgrind crash > on my machine. But as I said, I think we should be more aggressive at > resizing the buffer, to reduce resize cycles. I'm inclined to start out > with a buffer size of 128 or 256 or so bytes and double it when needed. > Anybody have a feeling for a typical size for the "main data" part > of a WAL record? We reuse the buffer and only pfree/palloc when we need to enlarge the buffer, so not sure we need to do the doubling thing and it probably doesn't matter what the typical size is. So I think we're just good to go with your patch. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: