| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock |
| Date: | 2020-11-24 15:01:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20201124150153.GA10181@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Nov-24, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> On 04.09.2020 20:13, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Re general routine: On second thought, it might actually be worth having
> > it. Even just for LSNs - there's plenty places where it's useful to
> > ensure a variable is at least a certain size. I think I would be in
> > favor of a general helper function.
> Do you mean by general helper function something like this?
>
> void
> swap_lsn(XLogRecPtr old_value, XLogRecPtr new_value, bool to_largest)
Something like that, yeah, though maybe name it "pg_atomic_increase_lsn"
or some similar name that makes it clear that
1. it is supposed to use atomics
2. it can only be used to *advance* a value rather than a generic swap.
(I'm not 100% clear that that's the exact API we need.)
> This CF entry was inactive for a while. Alvaro, are you going to continue
> working on it?
Yes, please move it forward. I'll post an update sometime before the
next CF.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-11-24 15:05:26 | Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-11-24 14:14:57 | Re: [doc] plan invalidation when statistics are update |