Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
Date: 2010-12-17 21:17:56
Message-ID: 6126.1292620676@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ hit send too soon ... ]

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Since these bits will only be set/cleared when the buffer mapping is
> changed, can we examine this bit without taking the spinlock?

Only if you're willing for the result to be unreliable. In the
case of the xlog flush bit, I don't believe an extra locking cycle
should be necessary anyway, as you surely had the lock when you
found the page to be dirty in the first place. You could grab the
bit then. I'm not sure where you envision checking the other bit,
but I doubt it can be all that far removed from a lock acquisition.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-12-17 21:19:21 Re: ps_status on fastpath
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-17 21:15:20 Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST