| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Date: | 2016-03-31 10:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20160331105855.GB808@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-31 06:54:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work. I'll try to write a
> > patch for approach 1).
>
> Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now
> need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation? That's has a somewhat
> uncomfortable sound to it.
Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):
> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
> embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
> op in a number of cases.
precisely because of that concern.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-31 11:14:02 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-31 10:58:39 | Re: Relation extension scalability |