Re: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

On 2024-Mar-05, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > Basically sounds good. My concerns are: > > * GetNamedDSMSegment() does not returns a raw pointer to dsm_segment. This > means > that it may be difficult to do dsm_unpin_segment on the caller side. Maybe we don't need a "named" DSM segment at a

RE: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

Dear Alvaro, Thanks for giving comments! > > I agreed it sounds good, but I don't think it can be implemented by > > current interface. An interface for dynamically allocating memory is > > GetNamedDSMSegment(), and it returns the same shared memory region if > > input names are the same. Theref

Re: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

Hello Hayato, On 2024-Mar-04, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > OK, I understood that my initial proposal is not so valuable, so I can > withdraw it. Yeah, that's what it seems to me. > About the suggetion, you imagined AutoVacuumRequestWork() and > brininsert(), right? Correct. > I agreed it

RE: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

Dear Alvaro, Thanks for discussing! > > I think it would be worth allocating AutoVacuumShmem->av_workItems using > dynamic shmem allocation, particularly to prevent workitems from being > discarded just because the array is full¹; but other than that, the > struct is just 64 bytes long so I doub

Re: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

On 2024-Mar-04, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > However, the second idea is still valid, which allows the allocation > of shared memory dynamically. This is a bit efficient for the system > which tuples won't be frozen. Thought? I think it would be worth allocating AutoVacuumShmem->av_workItems

RE: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

Dear Alvaro, Thanks for giving comments! > > While reading codes, I found that ApplyLauncherShmemInit() and > > AutoVacuumShmemInit() are always called even if they would not be > > launched. > > Note that there are situations where the autovacuum launcher is started > even though autovacuum is

Re: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

On 2024-Mar-04, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote: > Dear hackers, > > While reading codes, I found that ApplyLauncherShmemInit() and > AutoVacuumShmemInit() are always called even if they would not be > launched. Note that there are situations where the autovacuum launcher is started even though au

RE: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

Dear Tom, Thanks for replying! > "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" writes: > > While reading codes, I found that ApplyLauncherShmemInit() and > AutoVacuumShmemInit() > > are always called even if they would not be launched. > > It may be able to reduce the start time to avoid the unnecessary allocation.

Re: Some shared memory chunks are allocated even if related processes won't start

"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" writes: > While reading codes, I found that ApplyLauncherShmemInit() and > AutoVacuumShmemInit() > are always called even if they would not be launched. > It may be able to reduce the start time to avoid the unnecessary allocation. Why would this be a good idea? It wou