Right. I'm still not convinced if this makes any difference, or whether this alignment was merely a consequence of using ShmemAlloc(). I don't want to make this harder to understand unnecessarily.
Yeah, it makes sense.
Let's keep this simple - without additional alignment. I'll think about it a bit more, and maybe add it before commit.
OK.
> I will improve the comment in the next version. >
OK. Do we even need to pass nelem_alloc to hash_get_init_size? It's not really used except for this bit:
+ if (init_size > nelem_alloc) + element_alloc = false;
Can't we determine before calling the function, to make it a bit less confusing?
Yes, we could determine whether the pre-allocated elements are zero before calling the function, I have fixed it accordingly in the attached 0001 patch. Now, there's no need to pass `nelem_alloc` as a parameter. Instead, I've passed this information as a boolean variable-initial_elems. If it is false, no elements are pre-allocated.
Please find attached the v7-series, which incorporates your review patches and addresses a few remaining comments.
From:
Alexey Makhmutov Date: Subject:
Re: High CPU consumption in cascade replication with large number of walsenders and ConditionVariable broadcast issues
