| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck |
| Date: | 2025-05-11 19:33:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1121330.1746992010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Okay, here is a patch series that updates the
> 0001-Make-memory-contexts-themselves-more-visible-to-valg.patch
> patch you posted in that thread,
I forgot to mention that I did try to implement the "two-level
pool" scheme that the Valgrind documentation talks about, and
could not make it work. There seem to be undocumented interactions
between the outer and inner chunks, and it's not real clear to me
that there's not outright bugs. Anyway, AFAICS that scheme
would bring us no immediate advantages anyway, compared to the
flat approach of just adding mempool chunks for the allocators'
management areas.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-05-12 03:09:25 | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-05-11 19:10:53 | Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck |