| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Date: | 2013-11-19 15:26:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20131119152600.GA18094@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-11-19 09:12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On point #1, I dunno. It looks like a lot of rearrangement to me, and
> I'm not really sure what the final form of it is intended to be.
Understandable. I am not that sure what parts we want to rearange
either. We very well could leave barrier.h and s_lock.h untouched and
just maintain the atomics stuff in parallel and switch over at some
later point.
I've mainly switched over s_lock.h to a) get some good coverage of the
atomics code b) make sure the api works fine for it. We could add the
atomics.h based implementation as a fallback for the cases in which no
native implementation is available.
> I think it desperately needs a README explaining what the point of all
> this is and how to add support for a new platform or compiler if yours
> doesn't work.
Ok, I'll work on that. It would be useful to get feedback on the
"frontend" API in atomics.h though. If people are unhappy with the API
it might very well change how we can implement the API on different
architectures.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 15:27:57 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 15:23:57 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |