Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2016-04-09 19:43:03
Message-ID: 20160409194303.phz7cnsujquozmat@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-04-09 22:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> There are results with 5364b357 reverted.

Crazy that this has such a negative impact. Amit, can you reproduce
that? Alexander, I guess for r/w workload 5364b357 is a benefit on that
machine as well?

> It's much closer to what we had before.

I'm going to apply this later then. If there's some micro optimization
for large x86, we can look into that later.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-04-09 19:49:29 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2016-04-09 19:38:31 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics