Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer
Date: 2003-09-20 18:45:23
Message-ID: 26732.1064083523@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> MAX_ALIGNOF affects the on-disk format, correct?

Right, it could affect placement of fields on-disk. I was thinking we
could change it as an easy test, but maybe not ...

If you set up the shared buffers at an appropriate offset, that should
get most of the possible win from aligning I/O transfers, but not all.
It would also be worth looking at the local buffers (see
src/backend/storage/buffer/localbuf.c). The trouble here is, if malloc
returns something that's only 4-byte aligned, aren't we stuck?

There might also be some joy in making src/backend/storage/file/buffile.c
align its buffers suitably, but again the issue is controlling malloc.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2003-09-20 19:48:37 Re: 7.4beta2 vs 7.3.3
Previous Message Manfred Spraul 2003-09-20 18:15:15 Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Spraul 2003-09-20 20:44:25 Align large shared memory allocations
Previous Message Manfred Spraul 2003-09-20 18:15:15 Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer