Re: stress test for parallel workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: stress test for parallel workers
Date
Msg-id 1152781.1595906860@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stress test for parallel workers  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: stress test for parallel workers
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Hehe, the dodgy looking magic numbers *were* wrong:
> - * The kernel signal delivery code writes up to about 1.5kB
> + * The kernel signal delivery code writes a bit over 4KB
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20200724092528.1578671-2-mpe@ellerman.id.au/

... and, having seemingly not learned a thing, they just replaced
them with new magic numbers.  Mumble sizeof() mumble.

Anyway, I guess the interesting question for us is how long it
will take for this fix to propagate into real-world systems.
I don't have much of a clue about the Linux kernel workflow,
anybody want to venture a guess?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1.
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1.