From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
Date: | 2017-11-26 18:53:37 |
Message-ID: | 28144.1511722417@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 27 November 2017 at 04:46, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, I'm concerned about the possibility of a lot of palloc thrashing
>> if the first bunch of records it reads happen to have steadily increasing
>> sizes. However, rather than doubling, it might be sufficient to set a
>> robust minimum on the first allocation, ie use something along the lines
>> of Max(1024, MAXALIGN(state->main_data_len)).
> Agreed.
> I was just researching what that number should be... and I was
> thinking that we should use the maximum normal tuple size, which I
> think is
> TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD +
> SizeOfXLogRecord +
> SizeOfXLogRecordDataHeaderLong
Well, let's not overthink this, because anything under 8K is going to
be rounded up to the next power of 2 anyway by aset.c. Based on this
point I'd say that BLCKSZ/2 or BLCKSZ/4 would be reasonable candidates
for the minimum.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-26 19:09:02 | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-26 18:45:33 | Re: pgsql: Generational memory allocator |