On Tuesday 15 September 2015 16:50:44 Andres Freund wrote: > No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock. I'm sorry, I did not notice of a LockBufHdr.
In this embodiment, your approach seems to be very similar to s_lock. Cycle in PinBuffer behaves like s_lock. In LockBufHdr: if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &state, state | BM_LOCKED)) conflict with: while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED)) from PinBuffer. Thus your patch does not remove the problem of competition for PinBuffer. We will try check your patch this week. >You're posting >things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond >to points raised. I think we're just talking about different things. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
