Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Date
Msg-id 26863.1282850542@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
List pgsql-hackers
Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> On 08/26/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On the more general topic of imessages, I had one other thought that
>> might be worth considering.  Instead of using shared memory, what
>> about using a file that is shared between the sender and receiver?

> What would that buy us?

Not having to have a hard limit on the space for unconsumed messages?

> The current approach uses plain spinlocks, which are more efficient. 

Please note the coding rule that says that the code should not execute
more than a few straight-line instructions while holding a spinlock.
If you're copying long messages while holding the lock, I don't think
spinlocks are acceptable.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CopyReadLineText optimization revisited
Next
From: Markus Wanner
Date:
Subject: Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process