| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: spinlock contention |
| Date: | 2011-07-08 20:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4E17682C.7080506@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/08/2011 04:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> Patch attached.
>
>> Beware that it needs at least GCC 4.1, otherwise it'll use a per-partition
>> spin lock instead of "locked xadd" to increment the shared counters.
>
> That's already sufficient reason to reject the patch. Not everyone
> uses gcc, let alone very recent versions of gcc.
hmm - 4.1.0 was released in february 2006, which will be much older than
even the 5 year support policy we have on pg when 9.2 will be released,
not sure how much it will matter if we don't support as specific
optimization on a gcc that old..
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-08 20:40:02 | Re: spinlock contention |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-07-08 20:11:56 | Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1 |