On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:27 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've pushed all three parts of v29, with some additional corrections
> (picked lower OIDs, bumped catversion, fixed commit messages).
Hi Tomas, great, awesome! (this is an awesome feeling)! Thank You for
such incredible support on the last mile of this and also to Bertrand
(for persistence!), Andres and Alvaro for lots of babysitting.
> AFAIK v29 fixed this, the end pointer calculations were wrong. With that
> it passed for me with/without THP, different blocks sizes etc.
Yeah, that was a typo, I've started writing about v28, but then in the
middle of that v29 landed and I still was chasing that finding, I've
just forgotten to bump this.
> We don't align buffers to os_page_size, we align them PG_IO_ALIGN_SIZE,
> which is 4kB or so. And it's determined at compile time, while THP is
> determined when starting the cluster.
[..]
> Right, this is because that's where the THP boundary happens to be. And
> that one "duplicate" entry is for a buffer that happens to span two
> pages. This is *exactly* the misalignment of blocks and pages that I was
> wondering about earlier, and with the fixed endptr calculation we handle
> that just fine.
>
> No opinion on the aligment - maybe we should do that, but it's not
> something this patch needs to worry about.
Agreed.I was wondering even if there are other drawbacks of the
situation, but other than not reporting duplicates here in this
pg_buffercache view, I cannot identify anything worthwhile.
-J.
