From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: better atomics - v0.2
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:21:06 +0100
Message-ID: <20131119222106.GA6591@awork2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131119221656.GB28149@momjian.us>
References: <CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com>
<20131115200416.GH5489@awork2.anarazel.de>
<CA+Tgmobhd5hwC+NzCfn2p1MO8EHZjhNgFQyLcA-cjRtSJzZJ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<8392.1384873040@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<528B801D.5010609@gmx.net>
<9178.1384875024@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20131119153459.GB19293@alap2.anarazel.de>
<20131119213732.GX28149@momjian.us>
<20131119213919.GA2658@awork2.anarazel.de>
<20131119221656.GB28149@momjian.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2013-11-19 17:16:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:39:19PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-11-19 16:37:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> > > > > > (although it would surely be nice).
> > > > >
> > > > > inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
> > > > > Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
> > > >
> > > > But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even
> > > > if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline
> > > > support is realistic.
> > > >
> > > > I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win
> > > > by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with
> > > > multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is
> > > > significant.
> > >
> > > Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified. All my good
> > > work gets rewritten. ;-)
> >
> > That and HeapKeyTest() alone are sufficient reason for this ;)
>
> Has there been any performance testing on this rewrite to use atomics?
> If so, can I missed it.
Do you mean inline? Or atomics? If the former no, if the latter
yes. I've started on it because of
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130926225545.GB26663%40awork2.anarazel.de
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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: andres@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pg@heroku.com, ants@cybertec.at
Subject: Re: better atomics - v0.2
In-Reply-To: <20131119222106.GA6591@awork2.anarazel.de>
* 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