On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
v2 patch attached
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-18 15:18:11|
|Subject: Re: patch: Distinguish between unique indexes and unique constraints|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-04-18 07:24:36|
|Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance|