| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
| Date: | 2016-04-17 16:01:48 |
| Message-ID: | 9194.1460908908@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner.
Now that I've had some occasion to look around in bufmgr.c, I am very
unhappy that there are still boatloads of comments talking about a buffer
header's spinlock, when there is in fact no spinlock anymore. Please
expend some effort on making this less confusing for the next hacker.
Maybe make those comments talk about a "lock bit" instead?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-17 17:04:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-04-17 15:46:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-17 16:32:23 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-04-17 15:54:11 | Re: Pgbench with -f and -S |