| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86. |
| Date: | 2016-01-18 22:56:22 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsP4+=1csWCcbUc9KB4bJRybYNoW=NCXbxonAF0mMzHBJQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Now I'm equally unconvinced that it's worthwhile to do anything
> here. I just don't think benchmarking plays a role either way.
Well, that would be the crucial point on which we differ -- the
rest is all agreement. I don't think we should accept the patch
*in the absence* of benchmarking to show a result that is neutral
or better. Spinlocks are just too performance-critical and too
fussy to accept a change on the basis that "the source code looks
fine". IMO, anyway.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-01-18 22:56:40 | Re: jsonb - jsonb operators |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-01-18 22:53:07 | Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86. |