| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mark Wong <mark(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: stress test for parallel workers |
| Date: | 2020-07-28 03:27:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1152781.1595906860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hehe, the dodgy looking magic numbers *were* wrong:
> - * The kernel signal delivery code writes up to about 1.5kB
> + * The kernel signal delivery code writes a bit over 4KB
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20200724092528(dot)1578671-2-mpe(at)ellerman(dot)id(dot)au/
... and, having seemingly not learned a thing, they just replaced
them with new magic numbers. Mumble sizeof() mumble.
Anyway, I guess the interesting question for us is how long it
will take for this fix to propagate into real-world systems.
I don't have much of a clue about the Linux kernel workflow,
anybody want to venture a guess?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-07-28 03:36:22 | Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1. |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-28 03:20:45 | Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1. |