On 2016-07-13 13:37:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder though if we don't already have another similar use-case in
> the ad-hoc "slab allocators" in reorderbuffer.c.
That seems to call more for a general slab allocator design, than for
something like here. After all, there's plenty of freeing ther.e
> We already know that
> that code has performance issues, cf bug #14231, so I suspect there's
> a redesign in its future anyway.
Note that it's not the slab allocators that is having problems, it's
aset.c, iterating through all allocated blocks.
Andres
