Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdtcOhd-EcohXJpgLM66U2_86yhSp8ERWnqeMqKqWyqz9Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> originally this idea was proposed by Andres Freund while experimenting with
> lockfree Pin/UnpinBuffer [1].
> The patch is attached as well as results of pgbench -S on 72-cores
> machine. As before it shows huge benefit in this case.
That's one mighty ugly patch. Can't you do it without needing to
introduce the additional layer of struct nesting?
That's worrying me too.
We could use anonymous struct, but it seems to be prohibited in C89 which we stick to.
Another idea, which comes to my mind, is to manually calculate size of padding and insert it directly to PGXACT struct. But that seems rather ugly too. However, it would be ugly definition not ugly usage...
Do you have better ideas?
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: