From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:13:29 -0400
Message-ID: <1257109.1591298009@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604190645.xumymtlefvqgdhfr@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <1141819.1591208385@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200603204542.reuladbmgmjqzoi6@alap3.anarazel.de>
<1253593.1591293439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1256132.1591296640@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200604190645.xumymtlefvqgdhfr@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-06-04 14:50:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 2. The computed completePasses value would go backwards. I bet
>> that wouldn't matter too much either, or at least we could teach
>> BgBufferSync to cope. (I notice the comments therein suggest that
>> it is already designed to cope with completePasses wrapping around,
>> so maybe nothing needs to be done.)
> If we're not concerned about that, then we can remove the
> atomic-inside-spinlock, I think. The only reason for that right now is
> to avoid assuming a wrong pass number.
Hmm. That might be a less-invasive path to a solution. I can take
a look, if you don't want to.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
In-Reply-To: <1257109.1591298009@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox