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

Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()
Date: 2005-12-29 03:06:20
Message-ID: dovjp2$acb$1@news.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
>
> So I'm thinking the right answer is to make all the spinlock macros be
> the equivalent of the NoHoldoff case.  It's reasonable for LWLockAcquire
> to do a HOLD_INTERRUPTS, but I don't see the justification for doing it
> at the spinlock level.
>
I agree on this. But before changing it, we need to inspect those spinlocks 
one by one to making sure two things (1) if there is out-of-line-call, make 
sure no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); (2) ImmediateInterruptsOK is false (99% sure 
now).

>
> I'm a bit worried about doing that across-the-board, since at least in
> theory a vendor-supplied qsort ought to be tuned for the hardware et al.
> I think it would be better to substitute our own qsort only on those
> platforms where we have specifically proved it's a win.
>
Our tests indicates that BSD version is better ... but it is just a 
home-brew test.

Regards,
Qingqing



In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-29 03:31:46
Subject: Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-12-29 02:56:42
Subject: Extra space character in PL/pgSQL documentation

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