On 13/07/18 01:39, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 06:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2018-Jul-12, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> I fully understand. I think this needs to go back to "Waiting on Author".
>> Why? Heikki's patch applies fine and passes the regression tests.
>
> Well, I understood Claudio was going to do some more work (see
> upthread).
Claudio raised a good point, that doing small pallocs leads to
fragmentation, and in particular, it might mean that we can't give back
the memory to the OS. The default glibc malloc() implementation has a
threshold of 4 or 32 MB or something like that - allocations larger than
the threshold are mmap()'d, and can always be returned to the OS. I
think a simple solution to that is to allocate larger chunks, something
like 32-64 MB at a time, and carve out the allocations for the nodes
from those chunks. That's pretty straightforward, because we don't need
to worry about freeing the nodes in retail. Keep track of the current
half-filled chunk, and allocate a new one when it fills up.
He also wanted to refactor the iterator API, to return one ItemPointer
at a time. I don't think that's necessary, the current iterator API is
more convenient for the callers, but I don't feel strongly about that.
Anything else?
> If we're going to go with Heikki's patch then do we need to
> change the author, or add him as an author?
Let's list both of us. At least in the commit message, doesn't matter
much what the commitfest app says.
- Heikki
