On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:40 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please find the attached patches.
>
@@ -343,9 +343,9 @@ ReorderBufferAllocate(void)
*/
buffer->tup_context = GenerationContextCreate(new_ctx,
"Tuples",
- SLAB_LARGE_BLOCK_SIZE,
- SLAB_LARGE_BLOCK_SIZE,
- SLAB_LARGE_BLOCK_SIZE);
+ SLAB_DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE,
+ SLAB_DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE,
+ SLAB_DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE);
Shouldn't we change the comment atop this change [1] which states that
we should benchmark the existing values?
One more thing we kept the max size as SLAB_DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE instead
of something like we do with ALLOCSET_DEFAULT_SIZES, so we can
probably write a comment as to why we choose to use the max_size same
as init_size. BTW, can we once try to use the max size as
SLAB_LARGE_BLOCK_SIZE? Can it lead to the same problem with concurrent
transactions where freeing larger blocks could be a problem, if so, we
can at least write a comment for future reference.
[1] -
/*
* XXX the allocation sizes used below pre-date generation context's block
* growing code. These values should likely be benchmarked and set to
* more suitable values.
*/
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
