On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> In the patch attached to
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160411051004.yvniqb2pkc7re...@alap3.anarazel.de
> I did this instead by fixing up the actual shared memory allocation,
> which seems a tiny bit cleaner.
I don't really find t
Hi,
On 2016-04-11 07:09:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Attached patch does that.
Thanks.
> > Additionally, doesn't this obsolete
> >
> > /*
> > * Preferred alignment for disk I/O buffers. On some CPUs, copies between
> > * user space and kernel space are significantly faster if the user buff
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> InitBufferPool() manually fixes up alignment; that should probably be
>> removed now.
Attached patch does that.
>> I also wonder if it doesn't make sense to fix PG_CACHE_LINE_SIZE to
>> 64byte on x86. I personally think a manual ifdef in
On 2016-04-10 16:08:56 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-05 15:48:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Robert Haas writes:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> Robert Haas writes:
> > It's stupid that we
On 2016-04-05 15:48:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Robert Haas writes:
> It's stupid that we keep spending time and energy figuring out which
> shared
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
It's stupid that we keep spending time and energy figuring out which
shared memory data structures require alignment and which ones don't
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> It's stupid that we keep spending time and energy figuring out which
>>> shared memory data structures require alignment and which ones don't.
>>> Let's just align them *all* and be done with it. T
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> It's stupid that we keep spending time and energy figuring out which
>> shared memory data structures require alignment and which ones don't.
>> Let's just align them *all* and be done with it. The memory cost
>> shouldn't
On March 25, 2016 2:48:00 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas
wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> On March 25, 2016 1:04:13 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>>>On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Andres Freund
>>>wrote:
On 2015-11-12 19:59:54 +, Robert Haas wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
> It's stupid that we keep spending time and energy figuring out which
> shared memory data structures require alignment and which ones don't.
> Let's just align them *all* and be done with it. The memory cost
> shouldn't be more than a few kB.
I think such a proposal should
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On March 25, 2016 1:04:13 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Andres Freund
>>wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-12 19:59:54 +, Robert Haas wrote:
Move each SLRU's lwlocks to a separate tranche.
This
On March 25, 2016 1:04:13 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas
wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> On 2015-11-12 19:59:54 +, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Move each SLRU's lwlocks to a separate tranche.
>>>
>>> This makes it significantly easier to identify these lwlocks in
>>>
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-11-12 19:59:54 +, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Move each SLRU's lwlocks to a separate tranche.
>>
>> This makes it significantly easier to identify these lwlocks in
>> LWLOCK_STATS or Trace_lwlocks output. It's also arguably better
>> f
13 matches
Mail list logo
