From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-18 11:01:05 |
Message-ID: | 1271588465.8305.13998.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array.
v2 patch attached
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
knownassigned_sortedarray.v2.diff | text/x-patch | 35.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-18 15:18:11 | Re: patch: Distinguish between unique indexes and unique constraints |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-18 07:24:36 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |