Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
Date
Msg-id 26732.1311297589@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Noah Misch <noah@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:46:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> SIGetDataEntries() can pretty easily be made lock-free.  The only real
>>> changes that seem to be are needed are (1) to use a 64-bit counter, so
>>> you never need to decrement

>> On second thought, won't this be inadequate on 32-bit systems, where updating
>> the 64-bit counter produces two stores?  You must avoid reading it between those stores.

> Now that is a potentially big problem.

Could we do something similar to the xxid hacks?  That is, we have a lot
of counters that should be fairly close to each other, so we store only
the low-order 32 bits of each notional value, and separately maintain a
common high-order word.  You probably would need some additional
overhead each time the high-order word bumps, but that's reasonably
infrequent.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Kupershmidt
Date:
Subject: Re: psql: bogus descriptions displayed by \d+
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: libedit memory stomp is apparently fixed in OS X Lion