| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
| Date: | 2016-08-22 02:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20160822024044.cce36j45obqm6dji@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-19 09:46:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> > originally this idea was proposed by Andres Freund while experimenting with
> > lockfree Pin/UnpinBuffer [1].
> > The patch is attached as well as results of pgbench -S on 72-cores
> > machine. As before it shows huge benefit in this case.
>
> That's one mighty ugly patch.
My version of it was only intended to nail down some variability on the
pgpro machine, it wasn't intended for submission.
> Can't you do it without needing to introduce the additional layer of
> struct nesting?
If we required support for anonymous unions, such things would be a lot
easier to do. That aside, the only alternative seems tob e hard-coding
padding space - which probably isn't all that un-fragile either.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-22 02:49:02 | Re: replication slots replicated to standbys? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-22 02:31:42 | Re: replication slots replicated to standbys? |