Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:00:09 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Subject: Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock
Message-ID: <202404031200.335odntqgtq4@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202404031119.cd2kugjk2vho@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202404031200.335odntqgtq4%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Apr-03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> So what I do in the attached 0001 is stop using the XLogwrtResult struct
> in XLogCtl and replace it with separate Write and Flush values, and add
> the macro XLogUpdateLocalLogwrtResult() that copies the values of Write
> and Flush from the shared XLogCtl to the local variable given as macro
> argument.  (I also added our idiomatic do {} while(0) to the macro
> definition, for safety).  The new members are XLogCtl->logWriteResult
> and XLogCtl->logFlushResult and as of 0001 are just XLogRecPtr, so
> essentially identical semantics as the previous code.  No atomic access
> yet!

BTW I forgot.  I didn't like the name XLogUpdateLocalLogwrtResult() name
much.  What do you think about RefreshXLogWriteResult() instead?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"How strange it is to find the words "Perl" and "saner" in such close
proximity, with no apparent sense of irony. I doubt that Larry himself
could have managed it."         (ncm, http://lwn.net/Articles/174769/)