Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-02-18 18:42:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do we really want a dlist here at all? I'm concerned that bloating
>> LOCALLOCK will cost us when there are many locks involved. This patch
>> increases the size of LOCALLOCK by 25% if I counted right, which does
>> not seem like a negligible penalty.
> It's currently [ 80 bytes with several padding holes ]
> seems we could trivially squeeze most of the bytes for a dlist node out
> of padding.
Yeah, but if we want to rearrange the members into an illogical order
to save some space, we should do that independently of this patch ---
and then the overhead of this patch would be even worse than 25%.
regards, tom lane
