Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem.

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Дмитрий Дегтярёв <degtyaryov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem.
Date: 2013-11-21 15:09:13
Message-ID: 20131121150913.GD31748@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-11-21 09:08:05 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> This code is in a very hot code path. Are we *sure* that the read
> barrier is fast enough that we don't want to provide an alternate
> function that only returns the local flag? I don't know enough about
> them to say either way.

A read barrier is just a compiler barrier on x86.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-11-21 15:11:06 Re: WITH ORDINALITY versus column definition lists
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2013-11-21 15:08:05 Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem.