| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks |
| Date: | 2020-06-04 19:13:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1257109.1591298009@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-06-04 14:50:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 2. The computed completePasses value would go backwards. I bet
>> that wouldn't matter too much either, or at least we could teach
>> BgBufferSync to cope. (I notice the comments therein suggest that
>> it is already designed to cope with completePasses wrapping around,
>> so maybe nothing needs to be done.)
> If we're not concerned about that, then we can remove the
> atomic-inside-spinlock, I think. The only reason for that right now is
> to avoid assuming a wrong pass number.
Hmm. That might be a less-invasive path to a solution. I can take
a look, if you don't want to.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-04 20:35:53 | Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-04 19:07:34 | Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks |