Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date
Msg-id 24943.984759819@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>)
Responses Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.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.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Next
From: Alfred Perlstein
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance monitor signal handler