| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Broken atomics code on PPC with FreeBSD 10.3 |
| Date: | 2017-01-03 22:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20710.1483481039@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The only point I'm making here is that the width of a spinlock is not
> irrelevant.
Sure, but it does not follow that we need to get all hot and bothered
about the width of pg_atomic_flag, which has yet to find its first
use-case. When and if its width becomes a demonstrable issue,
we'll have some work to do in this area ... but that was true already.
> All things being equal
> I still think a narrower one is significantly better than a wider one,
> but we can always leave solving that problem to a day when the
> difference can be proved out by benchmarks.
I think we can agree on that conclusion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-03 22:17:06 | Re: Odd behavior with PG_TRY |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-03 22:02:18 | Re: Shrink volume of default make output |