On 2014-04-26 11:22:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.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.
The problem isn't so much that we need the individual bits, but that we need something that has an alignment of two, instead of 4. I don't think we need to decide this without benchmarks proving the benefits. I basically want to know whether somebody has an actual usecase - even if I really, really, can't think of one - of setting max_connections even remotely that high. If there's something fundamental out there that'd make changing the limit impossible, doing benchmarks wouldn't be worthwile. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
