On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only
> > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect
> > macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i.e. a
> > spinlock only for the hardware that needs it).
> Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places where
> there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't measure any real
> slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval code, so I didn't propose
> doing so at the time --- and I'm pretty dubious that this code is
> sufficiently performance-critical to justify the work, either.
OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array.
Thanks for your input.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-04-18 11:01:05|
|Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance|
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-04-18 06:48:41|
|Subject: [PATCH] fix segfault with DO and plperl/plperlu|