From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Date: | 2014-12-18 10:39:18 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF3W0wbmvK9kWmx2Z6ZSzxPDkX5RskmMpUXijujx44djw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>Isn't it better to allocate the memory for compression_scratch in
>>InitXLogInsert()
>>like hdr_scratch?
>
> I think making compression_scratch a statically allocated global variable
> is the result of following discussion earlier,
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoazNBuwnLS4bpwyqgqteEznOAvy7KWdBm0A2-tBARn_aQ@mail.gmail.com
/*
* Permanently allocate readBuf. We do it this way, rather than just
* making a static array, for two reasons: (1) no need to waste the
* storage in most instantiations of the backend; (2) a static char array
* isn't guaranteed to have any particular alignment, whereas palloc()
* will provide MAXALIGN'd storage.
*/
The above source code comment in XLogReaderAllocate() makes me think that
it's better to avoid using a static array. The point (1) seems less important in
this case because most processes need the buffer for WAL compression,
though.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-18 10:40:43 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-12-18 10:32:58 | Re: Streaming replication and WAL archive interactions |