| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: better atomics |
| Date: | 2013-10-28 20:06:47 |
| Message-ID: | 10161.1382990807@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On 28.10.2013 21:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think there are quite some algorithms relying on 16byte CAS, that's
>> why I was thinking about it at all. I think it's easier to add support
>> for it in the easier trawl through the compilers, but I won't argue much
>> for it otherwise for now.
> Many algorithms require a 2*(pointer width) CAS instruction. On 64-bit
> platforms that's 16 bytes, but on 32-bit platforms an 8 byte version
> will suffice.
You're both just handwaving. How many is "many", and which ones might
we actually have enough use for to justify dealing with such a dependency?
I don't think we should buy into this without some pretty concrete
justification.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-28 20:11:19 | Re: OSX doesn't accept identical source/target for strcpy() anymore |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-10-28 20:03:41 | Re: better atomics |