| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, Xu Yifeng <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Date: | 2001-03-16 17:10:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0103161309330.72183-100000@mobile.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> >> definitely need before considering this is to replace the existing
> >> spinlock mechanism with something more efficient.
>
> > What sort of problems are you seeing with the spinlock code?
>
> It's great as long as you never block, but it sucks for making things
> wait, because the wait interval will be some multiple of 10 msec rather
> than just the time till the lock comes free.
>
> We've speculated about using Posix semaphores instead, on platforms
> where those are available. I think Bruce was concerned about the
> possible overhead of pulling in a whole thread-support library just to
> get semaphores, however.
But, with shared libraries, are you really pulling in a "whole
thread-support library"? My understanding of shared libraries (altho it
may be totally off) was that instead of pulling in a whole library, you
pulled in the bits that you needed, pretty much as you needed them ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-03-16 17:10:43 | RE: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
| Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2001-03-16 17:03:46 | Re: ["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>] Re: O_DSYNC flag for open |