Hi,

On 2024-01-23 21:07:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 23:07, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > diff --git a/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_status.c 
> > > b/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_status.c
> > > index 1a1050c8da1..92f24db4e18 100644
> > > --- a/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_status.c
> > > +++ b/src/backend/utils/activity/backend_status.c
> > > @@ -257,17 +257,16 @@ pgstat_beinit(void)
> > >           else
> > >           {
> > >                   /* Must be an auxiliary process */
> > > -         Assert(MyAuxProcType != NotAnAuxProcess);
> > > +         Assert(IsAuxProcess(MyBackendType));
> > >                   /*
> > >                    * Assign the MyBEEntry for an auxiliary process.  
> > > Since it doesn't
> > >                    * have a BackendId, the slot is statically allocated 
> > > based on the
> > > -          * auxiliary process type (MyAuxProcType).  Backends use slots 
> > > indexed
> > > -          * in the range from 0 to MaxBackends (exclusive), so we use
> > > -          * MaxBackends + AuxProcType as the index of the slot for an 
> > > auxiliary
> > > -          * process.
> > > +          * auxiliary process type.  Backends use slots indexed in the 
> > > range
> > > +          * from 0 to MaxBackends (exclusive), and aux processes use the 
> > > slots
> > > +          * after that.
> > >                    */
> > > -         MyBEEntry = &BackendStatusArray[MaxBackends + MyAuxProcType];
> > > +         MyBEEntry = &BackendStatusArray[MaxBackends + MyBackendType - 
> > > FIRST_AUX_PROC];
> > >           }
> > 
> > Hm, this seems less than pretty. It's probably ok for now, but it seems 
> > like a
> > better fix might be to just start assigning backend ids to aux procs or 
> > switch
> > to indexing by pgprocno?
> 
> Using pgprocno is a good idea. Come to think of it, why do we even have a
> concept of backend ID that's separate from pgprocno? backend ID is used to
> index the ProcState array, but AFAICS we could use pgprocno as the index to
> that, too.

I think we should do that. There are a few processes not participating in
sinval, but it doesn't make enough of a difference to make sinval slower. And
I think there'd be far bigger efficiency improvements to sinvaladt than not
having a handful more entries.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


Reply via email to