Re: Fix comment for max_cached_tuplebufs definition

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix comment for max_cached_tuplebufs definition
Date: 2020-03-14 21:38:24
Message-ID: 20200314213824.GB22336@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 02:49:14PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> Hello Hackers,
>
> While working on some issue in logical decoding, I found some
> inconsistencies in the comment for defining max_cached_tuplebufs in
> reorderbuffer.c. It only exists till PG10 because after that the
> definition got removed by the generational memory allocator patch. The
> variable is defined as follows in reorderbuffer.c:
> static const Size max_cached_tuplebufs = 4096 * 2; /* ~8MB */
>
> And it gets compared with rb->nr_cached_tuplebufs in
> ReorderBufferReturnTupleBuf as follows:
> if (tuple->alloc_tuple_size == MaxHeapTupleSize &&
> rb->nr_cached_tuplebufs < max_cached_tuplebufs)
>
> {
> rb->nr_cached_tuplebufs++;
> }
>
> So, what this variable actually tracks is 4096 * 2 times
> MaxHeapTupleSize amount of memory which is approximately 64MB. I've
> attached a patch to modify the comment.
>
> But, I'm not sure whether the intention was to keep 8MB cache only. In
> that case, I can come up with another patch.

Yes, I see you are correct, since each tuplebuf is MaxHeapTupleSize.
Patch applied from PG 9.5 to PG 10. Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-03-14 22:09:17 Re: control max length of parameter values logged
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2020-03-14 19:58:22 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)