Re: Ensuring hash tuples are properly maxaligned

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Ensuring hash tuples are properly maxaligned
Date: 2018-01-03 01:40:50
Message-ID: 18301.1514943650@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:
> On 2018-01-03 14:29:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> But note that dsa_pointer can be wider than a regular pointer on
>>> platforms without atomics support.

>>> Hm. I did not get that impression from the comments in dsa.h,
>>> but if it's true then this approach won't work --- and indeed the
>>> hash code would be actively broken in such a case, so it's a problem
>>> we must fix.

>> Maybe Andres is thinking of dsa_pointer_atomic? dsa_pointer is
>> normally the size of a pointer (well, really, the size of size_t),
>> though it could be *narrower* if you don't have atomics or ask for it
>> with USE_SMALL_DSA_POINTER

> Yep, I was.

OK, then there's not a live bug, but I'm a bit tempted to get rid of
the data[] member anyway. It's not clear to me now that keeping it
results in net cleaner code. Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gerdan Rezende dos Santos 2018-01-03 01:41:02 Re: CFM for January commitfest?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-03 01:38:30 Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.