Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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>, 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: 2016-04-04 08:58:31
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 6. With Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 +
> 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect performance is
> almost same as with
> Head+pinunpin-cas-8, only sometime performance at 128 client is low
> (~250,000 instead of 650,000)

Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?



Attachment Content-Type Size
backoff.patch text/x-patch 744 bytes

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2016-04-04 08:59:20 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-04-04 08:45:01 Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.