| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Morris <john(dot)morris(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomic ops for unlogged LSN |
| Date: | 2023-07-18 00:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20230718000835.2ih4uyzbkn5u72ei@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-07-17 16:15:52 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 07:08:03PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Awesome. Was there any other feedback on this change which basically is
> > just getting rid of a spinlock and replacing it with using atomics?
> > It's still in needs-review status but there's been a number of
> > comments/reviews (drive-by, at least) but without any real ask for any
> > changes to be made.
>
> LGTM
Why don't we just use a barrier when around reading the value? It's not like
CreateCheckPoint() is frequent?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-07-18 00:12:11 | Re: Dumping policy on a table belonging to an extension is expected? |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-07-17 23:55:06 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |