From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Date: | 2010-04-17 22:52:26 |
Message-ID: | 9502.1271544746@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only
> weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect
> macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i.e. a
> spinlock only for the hardware that needs it).
Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places where
there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't measure any real
slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval code, so I didn't propose
doing so at the time --- and I'm pretty dubious that this code is
sufficiently performance-critical to justify the work, either.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-17 22:52:35 | Re: master in standby mode croaks |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-17 22:46:06 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |