Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes
Date: 2012-07-31 20:06:19
Message-ID: 4973.1343765179@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> IMHO, the way we have it now is kind of a mess.  SpinLockAcquire and
> SpinLockRelease are required to be CPU barriers, but they are not
> required to be compiler barriers.  If we changed that so that they
> were required to act as barriers of both flavors,

Since they are macros, how do you propose to do that exactly?

I agree that volatile-izing everything in the vicinity is a sucky
solution, but the last time we looked at this there did not seem to
be a better one.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2012-08-01 04:05:26
Subject: Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-07-31 20:03:32
Subject: Re: build postgresql on Mac OS X mountain lion with ossp-uuid

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group