| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Date: | 2010-08-26 19:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | 26863.1282850542@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> On 08/26/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On the more general topic of imessages, I had one other thought that
>> might be worth considering. Instead of using shared memory, what
>> about using a file that is shared between the sender and receiver?
> What would that buy us?
Not having to have a hard limit on the space for unconsumed messages?
> The current approach uses plain spinlocks, which are more efficient.
Please note the coding rule that says that the code should not execute
more than a few straight-line instructions while holding a spinlock.
If you're copying long messages while holding the lock, I don't think
spinlocks are acceptable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-08-26 19:40:02 | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-26 19:16:06 | Re: CopyReadLineText optimization revisited |