Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date: 2016-03-31 14:16:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):

>> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
>> embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
>> op in a number of cases.

> precisely because of that concern.

Oh, okay, ignore my comment just now in the other thread.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-03-31 14:18:46 Re: Correction for replication slot creation error message in 9.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-31 14:13:44 Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0