| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pasim(at)vmware(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
| Date: | 2020-06-09 23:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2235395.1591745055@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:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> When I went through the existing spinlock stanzas, the only thing that
>> really made me acutely uncomfortable was the chunk in pg_stat_statement's
>> pgss_store(), lines 1386..1438 in HEAD.
> I mean, what would be wrong with having an LWLock per pgss entry?
Hmm, maybe nothing. I'm accustomed to thinking of them as being
significantly more expensive than spinlocks, but maybe we've narrowed
the gap enough that that's not such a problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-06-09 23:54:15 | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-06-09 22:54:08 | Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) |