* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 22:17 +0000, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In passing, per discussion, rearrange some boolean fields in struct > >> MemoryContextData so as to avoid wasted padding space. For safety, > >> this requires making allowInCritSection's existence unconditional; > >> but I think that's a better approach than what was there anyway. > > > I notice that this uses the bytes in MemoryContextData that I was hoping > > to use for the memory accounting patch (for memory-bounded HashAgg). > > Meh. I thought Andres' complaint about that was unfounded anyway ;-). > But I don't really see why a memory accounting patch should be expected to > have zero footprint.
For my 2c, I agree that it's a bit ugly to waste space due to padding,
but I'm all about improving the memory accounting and would feel that's
well worth having a slightly larger MemoryContextData.
In other words, I agree with Tom that it doesn't need to have a zero
footprint, but disagree about wasting space due to padding. :D
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
