From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Date: | 2015-09-15 14:50:44 |
Message-ID: | 20150915145044.GA16920@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-09-15 12:51:24 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> We had a version like your patch. But this is only half the work. Example:
> state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> if ((state & BUF_REFCOUNT_MASK) == 0
> && (state & BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK) == 0)
> After the first command somebody can change buf->state and local state not
> actual.
No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock.
> In this embodiment, there is no significant difference between the two
> patches. For honest work will need used the CAS for all IF statement.
What?
> Thanks! Hope for understanding. ^_^
There's pretty little understanding left at this point. You're posting
things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond
to points raised.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-15 14:56:33 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2015-09-15 14:42:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an O(N^2) problem in foreign key references. |