| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 15:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | 29927.1290181470@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:
> I completely agree, but I'm not too sure I want to drop support for
> any platform for which we haven't yet implemented such primitives.
> What's different about this case is that "fall back to taking the spin
> lock" is not a workable option.
The point I was trying to make is that the fallback position can
reasonably be a no-op.
> That's good to hear. I'm more worried, however, about architectures
> where we supposedly have TAS but it isn't really TAS but some
> OS-provided "acquire a lock" primitive. That won't generalize nicely
> to what we need for this case.
I did say we need some research ;-). We need to look into what's the
appropriate primitive for any such OSes that are available for PPC or
MIPS. I don't feel a need to be paranoid about it for other
architectures.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-19 15:49:07 | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
| Previous Message | Vaibhav Kaushal | 2010-11-19 15:41:09 | What do these terms mean in the SOURCE CODE? |