Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits
Date: 2022-09-28 23:08:05
Message-ID: 4161300.1664406485@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 3. Sinval Message Size. Sinval messages are 16 bytes right now.
> They'll have to grow to 20 bytes if we do this. There's even less room
> for bit-squeezing here than there is for the WAL stuff. I'm skeptical
> that this really matters, but Tom seems concerned.

As far as that goes, I'm entirely prepared to accept a conclusion
that the benefits of widening relfilenodes justify whatever space
or speed penalties may exist there. However, we cannot honestly
make that conclusion if we haven't measured said penalties.
The same goes for the other issues you raise here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-09-28 23:24:13 Re: problems with making relfilenodes 56-bits
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-09-28 23:07:23 Re: A potential memory leak on Merge Join when Sort node is not below Materialize node