| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | locked reads for atomics |
| Date: | 2023-11-10 20:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20231110205128.GB1315705@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Moving this to a new thread and adding it to the January commitfest.
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:27:33PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 04:58:16PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> However, even if there's likely some other implied memory barrier that we
>> could piggyback on, the patch much simpler to understand if it doesn't change
>> coherency rules. There's no way the overhead could matter.
>
> I wonder if it's worth providing a set of "locked read" functions. Those
> could just do a compare/exchange with 0 in the generic implementation. For
> patches like this one where the overhead really shouldn't matter, I'd
> encourage folks to use those to make it easy to reason about correctness.
Concretely, like this.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| locked_atomic_reads_v1.patch | text/x-diff | 3.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-11-10 20:54:14 | Re: Atomic ops for unlogged LSN |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-11-10 20:48:04 | Re: pg_dump needs SELECT privileges on irrelevant extension table |