| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: locked reads for atomics |
| Date: | 2024-02-23 18:25:00 |
| Message-ID: | 274e5925684e71b0df4f7c0f473b8ce6fc6c382b.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 10:17 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The idea is
> to provide an easy way to remove spinlocks, etc. and use atomics for
> less
> performance-sensitive stuff. The implementations are intended to be
> relatively inexpensive and might continue to improve in the future,
> but the
> functions are primarily meant to help reason about correctness.
To be clear:
x = pg_atomic_[read|write]_membarrier_u64(&v);
is semantically equivalent to:
pg_memory_barrier();
x = pg_atomic_[read|write]_u64(&v);
pg_memory_barrier();
?
If so, that does seem more convenient.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-02-23 19:32:47 | Re: locked reads for atomics |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-02-23 17:37:59 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |