Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date: 2010-11-19 14:51:17
Message-ID: 201011191551.17695.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday 19 November 2010 15:49:45 Robert Haas wrote:
> If we're going to work on memory primitives, I would much rather see
> us put that effort into, say, implementing more efficient LWLock
> algorithms to solve the bottlenecks that the MOSBENCH guys found,
> rather than spending it on trying to avoid a minor API complication
> for the latch facility.
But for that you will need more infrastructure in that area anyway.

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-19 14:54:58 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-19 14:50:26 Re: Label switcher function