Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
Date: 2026-02-10 19:46:31
Message-ID: aYuIrKbh1kW36xbc@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2026-02-10 19:15:27 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 01:15:01PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2026-02-10 19:14:44 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Yea, I don't think we need to be perfect here. Just a bit less bad. And, as
> > you say, the current order doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > Just grouping things like
> > - pid, pgxactoff, backendType (i.e. barely if ever changing)
> > - wait_event_info, waitStart (i.e. very frequently changing, but typically
> > accessed within one proc)
> > - sem, lwWaiting, waitLockMode (i.e. stuff that is updated frequently and
> > accessed across processes)
>
> With an ordering like in the attached (to apply on top of Heikki's patch), we're
> back to 832 bytes.

You'd really need to insert padding between the sections to make it work...

> But, then the pg_attribute_aligned() added in Heikki's patch makes it 896 bytes...
>
> "
> /* 816 | 16 */ dlist_node lockGroupLink;
> /* XXX 64-byte padding */
>
> /* total size (bytes): 896 */
> }
> "
>
> What about applying this new ordering and remove the pg_attribute_aligned()?

> (I thought the aligned attribute would be smarter than that and not add this
> 64 padding bytes).

That's just because we have

/*
* Assumed cache line size. This doesn't affect correctness, but can be used
* for low-level optimizations. This is mostly used to pad various data
* structures, to ensure that highly-contended fields are on different cache
* lines. Too small a value can hurt performance due to false sharing, while
* the only downside of too large a value is a few bytes of wasted memory.
* The default is 128, which should be large enough for all supported
* platforms.
*/
#define PG_CACHE_LINE_SIZE 128

I don't think we need to worry about the number of bytes here very much. This
isn't much compared to all the other overheads a connection slot has (like the
memory for locks).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-02-10 20:53:58 Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2026-02-10 19:15:27 Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2026-02-10 20:43:19 Re: llvmjit - improve code generated in O0
Previous Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-02-10 19:37:41 Re: alter check constraint enforceability