Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
Date
Msg-id aZl99TEvMeckGcO6@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: PGPROC alignment (was Re: pgsql: Separate RecoveryConflictReasons from procsignals)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:03:09PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11/02/2026 06:40, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > That looks ok to see PGPROC as an "acceptable" one, if not, should we use the
> > union trick?
> 
> It seems acceptable to just not align it if the compiler doesn't support it.
> This is just a performance optimization, after all.

Agreed.

> Attached is new versions the remaining patches. I think these are ready to
> be committed.

Thanks!

One nit, 0001 is adding the typedef:

"
-struct PGPROC
+typedef struct PGPROC
.
.
.
-};
-
-/* NOTE: "typedef struct PGPROC PGPROC" appears in storage/lock.h. */
+       uint32          wait_event_info;        /* proc's wait information */
+} PGPROC;
"

Would that make more sense to add the typedef when we introduce the explicit
alignment in 0002 (like it was done in your previous
v2-0001-Align-PGPROC-to-cache-line-boundary.patch up-thread)?

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Odd code around ginScanToDelete