Re: A couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Koichi Suzuki
Subject Re: A couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support
Date
Msg-id 43182B3A.5070002@intellilink.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Thanks a lot for the port to CVS.

I agree that we need more benckmark efforts to clarify real outcome of
"more than 2GB" memory.   Please let me spend some more for this.  I
will post benchmark results.   As long as I see from pgbench, it looks
more memory gets more throuput.   Maybe big SQL against big dataset is
another example to show the effect.

I also agree that we need much more study to show the effect of 64bit
TID (and perhaps CID).   Based on the patch I posted, I'll continue my
effort and also post the results for discussion.

Best Regards;

Tom Lane wrote:
> Koichi Suzuki <koichi@intellilink.co.jp> writes:
>
>>Here're a couple of patches for PostgreSQL 64bit support.  There're just
>>two extension to 64bit, size of shared memory and transaction ID.
>
>
> I've applied the part of this that seemed reasonably noncontroversial,
> namely the fixes to do shared memory size calculation in size_t
> arithmetic instead of int arithmetic.  (While at it, I extended the Size
> convention to all the shared memory sizing routines, not just buffers,
> and added code to detect overflows in the calculations.  That way we
> don't need a "64 bit" configure switch.)  While I still remain
> unconvinced that there's any real-world need for more than 2Gb of
> shared_buffers, this change certainly makes the code more robust against
> configuration errors, and it has essentially zero cost (except maybe a
> few more milliseconds during postmaster start).
>
> On the other hand, I think the 64-bit XID idea needs considerably more
> work before being proposed again.  That would incur serious costs due
> to the expansion of tuple headers, and there's no evidence that the
> distributed cost would be bought back by avoiding one vacuum pass every
> billion transactions.  (Your description of the patch claimed that
> vacuuming requires shutting down the database, which is simply wrong.)
> Also, as previously noted, you can't just whack the size of XID around
> without considering side-effects on CID, OID, Datum, etc.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>


--
-------------------------------------------
Koichi Suzuki
Open Source Engineeering Departmeent,
NTT DATA Intellilink Corporation
Phone: +81-3-5566-9628  WWW: http://www.intellilink.co.jp
------------------------------------------

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] PSQL commands not backwards-compatible
Next
From: Atsushi Ogawa
Date:
Subject: Re: sum(int4)/sum(int2) improvement