From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mikhail <mp39590(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation |
Date: | 2021-11-19 20:34:51 |
Message-ID: | 3098705.1637354091@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This has been fixed. So now there are working basic futexes on Linux,
> macOS, {Free,Open,Net,Dragonfly}BSD (though capabilities beyond basic
> wait/wake vary, as do APIs). So the question is whether it would be
> worth trying to do our own futex-based semaphores, as sketched above,
> just for the benefit of the OSes where the available built-in
> semaphores are of the awkward SysV kind, namely macOS, NetBSD and
> OpenBSD. Perhaps we shouldn't waste our time with that, and should
> instead plan to use futexes for a more ambitious lwlock rewrite.
I kind of like the latter idea, but I wonder how we make it coexist
with (admittedly legacy) code for OSes that don't have usable futexes.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-11-19 21:21:31 | Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-19 20:31:00 | Re: TOAST - why separate visibility map |