From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
Date: | 2022-06-30 06:35:59 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-toifczgG2VtXAtuYbZJGA8hNNnkzQxng6Uw7WE1FAYvg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 5:15 PM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 02:30, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > > And then like this in 0003:
> > >
> > > typedef struct buftag
> > > {
> > > Oid spcOid;
> > > Oid dbOid;
> > > RelFileNumber fileNumber:56;
> > > ForkNumber forkNum:8;
> > > } BufferTag;
> >
> > Probably worth checking the generated code / the performance effects of using
> > bitfields (vs manual maskery). I've seen some awful cases, but here it's at a
> > byte boundary, so it might be ok.
>
> Another approach would be to condense spcOid and dbOid into a single
> 4-byte Oid-like number, since in most cases they are associated with
> each other, and not often many of them anyway. So this new number
> would indicate both the database and the tablespace. I know that we
> want to be able to make file changes without doing catalog lookups,
> but since the number of combinations is usually 1, but even then, low,
> it can be cached easily in a smgr array and included in the checkpoint
> record (or nearby) for ease of use.
>
> typedef struct buftag
> {
> Oid db_spcOid;
> ForkNumber uint32;
> RelFileNumber uint64;
> } BufferTag;
>
> That way we could just have a simple 64-bit RelFileNumber, without
> restriction, and probably some spare bytes on the ForkNumber, if we
> needed them later.
Yeah this is possible but I am not seeing the clear advantage. Of
Course we can widen the RelFileNumber to 64 instead of 56 but with the
added complexity of storing the mapping. I am not sure if it is
really worth it?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-06-30 08:01:00 | Patch proposal: New hooks in the connection path |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2022-06-30 06:31:55 | Re: Strange failures on chipmunk |