Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Despite my concerns about keeping the list of supported atomics short,
>> and I do have concerns in that area, I'm not really sure that we have
>> much choice but to go in that direction. We can't accept a >5x
>> performance hit in the name of portability, and that's literally what
>> we're talking about in some cases. I definitely want to think
>> carefully about how we proceed in this area but doing nothing doesn't
>> seem like an option.
>
> To be clear, I'm not advocating doing nothing (and I don't think anyone
> else is). It's obvious based on Andres' results that we want to use
> atomics on platforms where they're well-supported. The argument is
> around what we're going to do for other platforms.

OK, but that still seems like the issue on the other thread, not
what's being discussed here.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company