Re: [HACKERS] Block Sizes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Block Sizes
Date
Msg-id 9801061351.AA28854@ceodev
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Block Sizes  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>
> How hard would it be for postgresql to support adjustable block sizes?
> Just wondering.
>

I can take a stab at this tonite after work now that the snapshot is there.
Still have around some of the files/diffs from looking at this a year ago...

I don't think it will be hard, just a few files with BLCKSZ/MAXBLCKSZ
references to check for breakage.  Appears that only one bit of lp_flags is
being used too, so that would seem to allow up to 32k blocks.

Other issue is the bit alignment in the ItemIdData structure.  In the past,
I've read that bit operations were slower than int ops.  Is this the case?

I want to check to see if the structure is only 32 bits and not being padded
by the compiler.  Worse to worse, make one field of 32 bits and make macros
to access the three pieces or make lp_off & lp_len shorts and lp_flags a char.

I can check the aix compiler, but what does gcc and other compilers do with
bit field alignment?


darrenk

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] subselect
Next
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current regression tests