Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16
Date: 2014-04-26 15:22:39
Message-ID: 21832.1398525759@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-04-26 05:40:21 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, where are you finding that a 32-bit integer is
>> causing problems that a 16-bit one would solve?

> Save space? For one it allows to shrink some structs (into one
> cacheline!).

And next week when we need some other field in a buffer header,
what's going to happen? If things are so tight that we need to
shave a few bits off backend IDs, the whole thing is a house of
cards anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2014-04-26 16:12:56 Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-26 15:20:56 Re: Decrease MAX_BACKENDS to 2^16