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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance at 2010-04-17 22:46:06 from Simon Riggs

Responses

• Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance at 2010-04-18 07:24:36 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-04-17 22:52:35
	Subject: Re: master in standby mode croaks
Previous:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2010-04-17 22:46:06
	Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance