| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 04:38:14 |
| Message-ID: | 18241.1290141494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm all in favor of having some memory ordering primitives so that we
> can try to implement better algorithms, but if we use it here it
> amounts to a fairly significant escalation in the minimum requirements
> to compile PG (which is bad) rather than just a performance
> optimization (which is good).
I don't believe there would be any escalation in compilation
requirements: we already have the ability to invoke stronger primitives
than these. What is needed is research to find out what the primitives
are called, on platforms where we aren't relying on direct asm access.
My feeling is it's time to bite the bullet and do that work. We
shouldn't cripple the latch operations because of laziness at the
outset.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-19 04:52:34 | Re: Improving prep_buildtree used in VPATH builds |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-19 03:21:12 | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |