On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere > > > > when only weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a > > > > weak-memory-protect macro that does does nada when the > > > > hardware already protects us? (i.e. a spinlock only for the > > > > hardware that needs it). > > > > > > Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places > > > where there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't > > > measure any real slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval > > > code, so I didn't propose doing so at the time --- and I'm > > > pretty dubious that this code is sufficiently > > > performance-critical to justify the work, either. > > > > OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array. > > v2 patch attached
If you've committed this, or any other patch you've sent here, *please* mention so on the same thread. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
