| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <sochakraborty(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Accounting |
| Date: | 2019-10-04 14:32:21 |
| Message-ID: | 0278d32083d051f165c75d605d9fd1a82a197ef8.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 10:26 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 12:36:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So ... why exactly did this patch define
> > MemoryContextData.mem_allocated
> > as int64? That seems to me to be doubly wrong: it is not the right
> > width
> > on 32-bit machines, and it is not the right signedness anywhere. I
> > think
> > that field ought to be of type Size (a/k/a size_t, but memnodes.h
> > always
> > calls it Size).
> >
>
> Yeah, I think that's an oversight. Maybe there's a reason why Jeff
> used
> int64, but I can't think of any.
I had chosen a 64-bit value to account for the situation Tom mentioned:
that, in theory, Size might not be large enough to represent all
allocations in a memory context. Apparently, that theoretical situation
is not worth being concerned about.
The patch has been floating around for a very long time, so I don't
remember exactly why I chose a signed value. Sorry.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-10-04 14:35:59 | Remove some code for old unsupported versions of MSVC |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-10-04 14:29:03 | Re: Memory Accounting |