From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |
Date: | 2014-07-01 21:31:53 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQ+E6QUqfX27Cv-f+rNEqawroV_PoAcHXmQTaKHFYukQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Despite my concerns about keeping the list of supported atomics short,
>> and I do have concerns in that area, I'm not really sure that we have
>> much choice but to go in that direction. We can't accept a >5x
>> performance hit in the name of portability, and that's literally what
>> we're talking about in some cases. I definitely want to think
>> carefully about how we proceed in this area but doing nothing doesn't
>> seem like an option.
>
> To be clear, I'm not advocating doing nothing (and I don't think anyone
> else is). It's obvious based on Andres' results that we want to use
> atomics on platforms where they're well-supported. The argument is
> around what we're going to do for other platforms.
OK, but that still seems like the issue on the other thread, not
what's being discussed here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2014-07-01 22:21:07 | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-07-01 21:30:10 | Re: Can simplify 'limit 1' with slow function? |