| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizing PostgreSQL with LLVM's PGO+LTO |
| Date: | 2023-01-27 23:08:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20230127230850.swranm4ikydcmjpe@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 15:06:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> There are a lot of places where we're implicitly relying on
> cross-compilation-unit optimizations NOT happening, because the code isn't
> adequately decorated with memory barriers and the like.
We have a fallback compiler barrier implementation doing that, but it
shouldn't be used on any halfway reasonable compiler. Cross-compilation-unit
calls don't provide a memory barrier - I assume you're thinking about a
compiler barrier?
I'm sure we have a few places that aren't that careful, but I would hope it's
not a large number. Are you thinking of specific "patterns" we've repeated all
over, or just a few cases you recall?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-01-27 23:15:07 | Re: improving user.c error messages |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-27 23:07:52 | Re: Optimizing PostgreSQL with LLVM's PGO+LTO |