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: 2023-05-19 06:54:42
Message-ID: ZGcdMikgRP9fnwPI@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:18:25AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I think what I have so far seems more verbose explaining what a
> barrier does and all that. I honestly think we don't need to be that
> verbose, thanks to README.barrier.

Agreed. This file is a mine of information.

> I simplified those 2 comments as the following:
>
> * NB: pg_atomic_exchange_u64, having full barrier semantics will ensure
> * the variable is updated before releasing the lock.
>
> * NB: pg_atomic_exchange_u64, having full barrier semantics will ensure
> * the variable is updated before waking up waiters.
>
> Please find the attached v7 patch.

Nit. These sentences seem to be worded a bit weirdly to me. How
about:
"pg_atomic_exchange_u64 has full barrier semantics, ensuring that the
variable is updated before (releasing the lock|waking up waiters)."

+ * Be careful that LWLockConflictsWithVar() does not include a memory barrier,
+ * hence the caller of this function may want to rely on an explicit barrier or
+ * a spinlock to avoid memory ordering issues.

Thanks, this addition looks OK to me.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2023-05-19 07:36:21 RE: walsender performance regression due to logical decoding on standby changes
Previous Message Marina Polyakova 2023-05-19 06:39:39 Re: Conflict between regression tests namespace & transactions due to recent changes