| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 14:29:10 |
| Message-ID: | 201011191529.11332.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 19 November 2010 15:16:24 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > So the complicated case seems to be !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) which uses
> > spinlocks for that purpose - no idea where that is true these days.
> Me neither, which is exactly the problem. Under Tom's proposal, any
> architecture we don't explicitly provide for, breaks.
I doubt its that much of a problem as !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) will be so
slow that there would be noise from that side more often...
Besides, we can just jump into the kernel and back in that case (which the TAS
implementation already does), that does more than just a fence...
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-19 14:31:06 | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-11-19 14:27:51 | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |