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 <simon@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 <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@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
