Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive
Date: 2016-09-09 00:43:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-08-31 15:15:16 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On August 31, 2016 3:06:23 PM PDT, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >>In other painfully pedantic news, I should point out that
> >>sizeof(size_t) isn't necessarily word size (the most generic
> >>definition of word size for the architecture), contrary to my reading
> >>of the 0002-* patch comments. I'm mostly talking thinking about x86_64
> >>here, of course.
> >
> > Uh?
> Sorry, I really should have not said anything. It is true that x86_64
> word size is sometimes reported as 16 and/or 32 bits [1], because of
> legacy issues.

I think native word size describes the issue well enough. And, more
importantly, I can't think of an equally short but more accurate

I've pushed the patches. Thanks for the review.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2016-09-09 00:51:54 Re: ICU integration
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-09-09 00:42:13 Re: mdtruncate leaking fd.c handles?