| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. | 
| Date: | 2016-04-12 04:03:35 | 
| Message-ID: | 20160412040335.7melgsixigrhr656@alap3.anarazel.de | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers | 
On 2016-04-11 23:59:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Will fix (both initialization and use of pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32), and
> > expand the documentation on why only atomic read/write are supposed to
> > be used.
> 
> FWIW, I'd vote against adding a SpinLockInit there.
Well, it'd not be a SpinLockInit, but a pg_atomic_init_u32(), but ...
> What it would mostly
> do is prevent noticing future mistakes of the same ilk.  It would be
> better no doubt if we didn't have to rely on a nearly-dead platform
> to detect this; but having such detection of a performance bug is better
> than having no detection.
Ok, works for me as well. I guess it'd be useful to add a "modern"
animal that disables spinlocks & atomics...
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-12 04:32:13 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-12 03:59:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-12 04:32:13 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-12 03:59:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |