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

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
Date: 2026-02-11 04:40:40
Message-ID: aYwISFVCAJon5ZxT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 10:53:58PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/02/2026 21:46, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Here's my attempt at grouping things more logically.

Thanks!

> I didn't insert padding
> and also didn't try to avoid alignment padding. I tried to optimize for
> readability rather than size or performance.

Yeah, my attempt was to put the size back to 832 bytes but that's probably not
worth it as stated by Andres up-thread.

> That said, I would assume that
> grouping things logically like this would also help to avoid false sharing.
> If not, inserting explicit padding seems like a a good fix.
>
> I also think we should split 'links' into two fields. For clarity.
>

A few comments:

0001:

+ * and (b) to make the multiplication / division to convert between PGPROC *
+ * and ProcNumber be a little cheaper

Is that correct if PGPROC size is not a power of 2?

0002: Good catch!

0003:

1/ There is one missing change in PrintLockQueue() ("links" is still used, and
that should be replaced by "waitLink").

2/ change the comment on top of ProcWakeup?

"
/*
* ProcWakeup -- wake up a process by setting its latch.
*
* Also remove the process from the wait queue and set its links invalid.
"

s/links/waitLink/?

Also, out of curiosity, with 0003 in place PGPROC size goes from 840 to 856.

0004:

The grouping looks Ok to me. Just one nit for the added comments:

+ /*---- Backend identity ----*/
+ /*---- Transactions and snapshots ----*/
+ /*---- Inter-process signaling ----*/
+ /*---- LWLock waiting ----*/
+ /*---- Lock manager data ----*/
+ /*---- Synchronous replication waiting ----*/
+ /*---- Support for group XID clearing. ----*/
+ /*---- Support for group transaction status update. ----*/
+ /*---- Status reporting ----*/

Some have period and some don't.

> With this, sizeof(PGPROC) == 864 without the explicit alignment to
> PG_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, and 896 with it.

I can see 876 -> 896 on my side:

/* 872 | 4 */ uint32 wait_event_info;
/* XXX 20-byte padding */

/* total size (bytes): 896 */
}
Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-02-11 10:03:44 pgsql: Remove useless store to local variable
Previous Message Robert Haas 2026-02-10 22:57:15 pgsql: Store information about Append node consolidation in the final p

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2026-02-11 05:17:43 Re: Skipping schema changes in publication
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2026-02-11 04:35:40 Re: PL/Julia: clarification on IN array parameters issue