Hi, On 2025-03-04 14:05:22 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 3/3/25 21:52, Andres Freund wrote: > >> It's not a proper constant, of course, but it seemed close > >> enough. Yes, it might confuse people into thinking it's a constant, or > >> is there some additional impact? > > > > That seems plenty. I just looked at the shem sizing function and was > > confused > > because I didn't see where the max_locks_per_transaction affects the > > allocation size. > > > > But the shmem sizing doesn't use FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND at all, both > proc.c and postinit.c use the "full" formula, not the macro
Not sure what I brainfarted there... > >> The one fix I can think of is making it look more like a function, > >> possibly just like this: > >> > >> #define FastPathLockSlotsPerBackend() \ > >> (FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend) > >> > >> Or do you have another suggestion? > > > > That'd work for me. > > > > Attached is a patch doing this, but considering it has nothing to do > with the shmem sizing, I wonder if it's worth it. Yes. Greetings, Andres Freund
