| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
| Date: | 2017-02-28 05:29:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1671.1488259784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Hm, that should be doable with something like
> #if MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF > 4 && SIZEOF_VOID_P == 4
> which'd probably be better documentation than a macro that hides this
> (arguing internally whether SIZEOF_VOID_P or SIZEOF_SIZE_T) is better.
Not sure either, but suggest we add a StaticAssert asserting there's no
padding; something along the lines of
offsetof(AllocSetChunkHeader, context) + sizeof(MemoryContext) == MAXALIGN(sizeof(AllocSetChunkHeader))
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2017-02-28 05:36:04 | WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-02-28 05:23:02 | avoid bloat from CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY |