| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability |
| Date: | 2012-06-26 22:12:19 |
| Message-ID: | 14481.1340748739@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> And then you have fabulous things like:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102145/
> (OSX defines _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED but does not actually support
> it.)
> Seems not very well tested in any case.
> It might be worthwhile testing futexes on Linux though, they are
> specifically supported on any kind of shared memory (shm/mmap/fork/etc)
> and quite well tested.
Yeah, a Linux-specific replacement of spinlocks with futexes seems like
a lot safer idea than "let's rely on posix mutexes everywhere". It's
still unproven whether it'd be an improvement, but you could expect to
prove it one way or the other with a well-defined amount of testing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-06-26 22:12:41 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-06-26 22:05:27 | Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal |