Re: [HACKERS] HASH_CHUNK_SIZE vs malloc rounding

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It doesn't seem that crazy to expose aset.c's overhead size to client >> code does it? Most client code wouldn't care, but things that are >> doing something closer to memory allocator work themselves like >> dense_alloc

Re: [HACKERS] HASH_CHUNK_SIZE vs malloc rounding

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> I bet other allocators also do badly with "32KB plus a smidgen". To >> minimise overhead we'd probably need to try to arrange for exactly >> 32KB (or some other power of