| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: better atomics |
| Date: | 2013-10-28 19:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZj_e5D9W5Qm1q07HdUKzpV7tvk3FL_C2q3e4wYg6HBDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I wonder whether it'd be safe to assume that any machine where
>> pointers are 8 bytes has 8-byte atomic loads and stores. I bet there
>> is a counterexample somewhere. :-(
>
> Sparc64 :(.
>
> Btw, could you quickly give some keywords what you're thinking about
> making lockless?
> I mainly am thinking about lwlocks and buffer pins so far. Nothing
> really ambitious.
Well, I was going to use it for some code I'm working on for
parallelism, but I just tested the overhead of a spinlock, and it was
zero, possibly negative. So I may not have an immediate application.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-28 20:02:36 | Re: OSX doesn't accept identical source/target for strcpy() anymore |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-28 19:46:09 | Re: OSX doesn't accept identical source/target for strcpy() anymore |