| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix pg_stat_get_backend_wait_event() for aux processes |
| Date: | 2026-02-04 09:36:14 |
| Message-ID: | 05725eaf-3c58-4fab-b03e-3a3dafe1225f@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/02/2026 10:02, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:29:27PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> There might be a performance argument too,
>
> yeah, not sure but with the patch in place the size of PGPROC goes from
> 832 bytes to 824 bytes. Is it worth to add extra padding so that it still remain
> a multiple of 64?
Hmm, I don't think so. We've never given cacheline alignment any thought
when we've changed the PGPROC fields in the past (or at least I
haven't). Perhaps we should, but it would warrant a separate investigation.
Now that I look at that, the most frequently accessed fields are not at
the beginning or end of the struct, so I don't think there's much harm
in sharing cache lines. And the really hot GetSnapshotData() function
uses the "mirrored" arrays anyway.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-02-04 09:43:53 | Re: [Proposal] Adding Log File Capability to pg_createsubscriber |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-02-04 09:24:27 | Re: AIX support |