| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: literature on write-ahead logging |
| Date: | 2011-06-09 16:52:55 |
| Message-ID: | 10192.1307638375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ lots of interesting stuff about WAL optimization snipped ]
> ... Second, they aren't really using locks, unless you count
> bus locks - they appear to have implemented most or all of it via
> CAS-based lock-free algorithms, which is probably well-justified
> optimization effort.
FWIW, I'm pretty suspicious of claims that lock-free data structures
will be some kind of magic bullet. As far as I can tell, a very large
part of our contention problems on many-core machines stem from the CPUs
fighting over cache line ownership. Avoiding an explicit lock in favor
of hardware primitive test-and-modify instructions isn't going to do a
darn thing to improve that. And contorting the algorithms until they
fit into what's portably available in that line could easily be a net
loss.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-06-09 16:54:37 | Re: [v9.1] sepgsql - userspace access vector cache |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-09 16:40:08 | Re: tuning autovacuum |