Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Date: 2023-05-12 22:56:56
Message-ID: ZF7EOF78TkD7g2Qk@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:35:20AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> --enable-atomics=no, -T60:
> --enable-spinlocks=no, -T60:
> --enable-atomics=no --enable-spinlocks=no, -T60:

Thanks for these extra tests, I have not done these specific cases but
the profiles look similar to what I've seen myself. If I recall
correctly the fallback implementation of atomics just uses spinlocks
internally to force the barriers required.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kirk Wolak 2023-05-12 23:00:23 Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-05-12 22:12:19 Re: smgrzeroextend clarification