Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()
Date: 2005-12-29 03:06:20
Message-ID: dovjp2$acb$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
> So I'm thinking the right answer is to make all the spinlock macros be
> the equivalent of the NoHoldoff case.  It's reasonable for LWLockAcquire
> to do a HOLD_INTERRUPTS, but I don't see the justification for doing it
> at the spinlock level.
I agree on this. But before changing it, we need to inspect those spinlocks 
one by one to making sure two things (1) if there is out-of-line-call, make 
sure no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); (2) ImmediateInterruptsOK is false (99% sure 

> I'm a bit worried about doing that across-the-board, since at least in
> theory a vendor-supplied qsort ought to be tuned for the hardware et al.
> I think it would be better to substitute our own qsort only on those
> platforms where we have specifically proved it's a win.
Our tests indicates that BSD version is better ... but it is just a 
home-brew test.


In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-29 03:31:46
Subject: Re: Fix spinlock usage in UnpinBuffer()
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-12-29 02:56:42
Subject: Extra space character in PL/pgSQL documentation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group