| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: injection_points: Switch wait/wakeup to use atomics rather than latches |
| Date: | 2026-05-29 12:48:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYE-9WhM-owWtX3grbSeHtOJCF__wEEdoD-jj-oJ+=TSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 7:19 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 08:40:39AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > After reading this email, the linked-to email, and the commit message
> > for the patch, I still don't have a clear understanding of what this
> > is intended to fix. It seems like it's going to make the
> > responsiveness worse. In general, we want to replace escalating wait
> > loops with things that wake up instantly at the right time, and this
> > is going in the opposite direction.
>
> This is an exchange between responsiveness of the system and
> flexibility. I have had two complaints in the past about the fact
> that the waits and wakeups were not doable due to the fact that we
> rely on condition variables and latches:
I'm still struggling to understand. Condition variables and latches
are both designed to allow for nice waits and wakeups.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-05-29 12:51:23 | Re: Key joins |
| Previous Message | Jakob Egger | 2026-05-29 12:26:59 | glob support in extension_control_path/dynamic_library_path? |