Re: Do we need so many hint bits?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Do we need so many hint bits?
Date: 2012-11-17 21:53:31
Message-ID: 14867.1353189211@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> What's the problem with that? If you already have the VM buffer pinned
> (which should be possible if we keep the VM buffer in a longer-lived
> structure), then doing the test is almost as cheap as checking
> PD_ALL_VISIBLE, because you don't need any locks.

Really? What about race conditions? Specifically, I think what you
suggest is likely to be unreliable on machines with weak memory
ordering. Consider possibility that someone else just changed the VM
bit. Getting a lock ensures synchronization. (Yeah, it's possible that
we could use some primitive cheaper than a lock ... but it's not going
to be free.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-11-17 21:57:49 Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2012-11-17 21:38:03 Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL