Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more)

Hi,

On 2025-03-03 21:31:42 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 3/3/25 19:10, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-09-21 20:33:49 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> I've finally pushed this, after many rounds of careful testing to ensure
> >> no regressions, and polishing.
> > 
> > One minor nit: I don't like that FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND is now non-constant
> > while looking like a constant:
> > 
> > #define		FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND	(FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)
> > 
> > I don't think it's a good idea to have non-function-like #defines that
> > reference variables that can change from run to run.
> > 
> 
> Fair point, although it can't change "run to run" - not without a
> restart.

That's what I meant with "run to run".


> 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.


> 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.

Greetings,

Andres Freund