|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>|
|Subject:||Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2022-Mar-22, Tom Lane wrote:
> I looked briefly at 0001, and I've got to say that I disagree with
> your decision to rearrange the representation of the local LogwrtResult
> copy. It clutters the patch tremendously and makes it hard to
> understand what the actual functional change is. Moreover, I'm
> not entirely convinced that it's a notational improvement in the
> first place.
> Perhaps it'd help if you split 0001 into two steps, one to do the
> mechanical change of the representation and then a second patch that
> converts the shared variable to atomics. Since you've moved around
> the places that read the shared variable, that part is subtler than
> one could wish and really needs to be studied on its own.
Hmm, I did it the other way around: first change to use atomics, then
the mechanical change. I think that makes the usefulness of the change
more visible, because before the atomics use the use of the combined
struct as a unit remains sensible.
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")
|Next Message||Alexander Pyhalov||2022-03-22 16:15:10||Re: Partial aggregates pushdown|
|Previous Message||Mark Dilger||2022-03-22 16:11:09||Re: New Object Access Type hooks|