| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-25 16:51:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4123.1272214318@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This needs a redesign before it can be considered committable. I don't
>> really care whether it makes things faster; it's too complicated and too
>> poorly documented to be maintainable.
> There are more than 60 lines of header comment explaining in detail how
> this works, with a full algorithmic analysis. The remaining code is
> commented to project standards, with easily more than 100 lines of
> comments.
If the comments were correct, I wouldn't be complaining. They're
misleading or outright wrong on many points. In particular, I don't
think you actually understand the weak-memory-ordering issue, because
the comments about that are entirely wrong. I don't think they are
adequate on other points either --- for example, I now understand why my
complaint of a few minutes ago about KnownAssignedXidsValid is wrong,
but the comments certainly didn't help me on that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-25 16:54:59 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-25 16:46:38 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |