Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsETYvpgGt_BOLn+5bBG4ve=bBCLVKVJizoPMSwhTus1tw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've investigated this issue and have a question about using atomic
> variables on palloc'ed memory. In non-parallel vacuum cases,
> radix_tree_control is allocated via aset.c. IIUC in 32-bit machines,
> the memory allocated by aset.c is 4-bytes aligned so these atomic
> variables are not always 8-bytes aligned. Is there any way to enforce
> 8-bytes aligned memory allocations in 32-bit machines?

The bigger question in my mind is: Why is there an atomic variable in backend-local memory?

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: SI-read predicate locks on materialized views
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum