| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes |
| Date: | 2012-07-31 20:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4973.1343765179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> IMHO, the way we have it now is kind of a mess. SpinLockAcquire and
> SpinLockRelease are required to be CPU barriers, but they are not
> required to be compiler barriers. If we changed that so that they
> were required to act as barriers of both flavors,
Since they are macros, how do you propose to do that exactly?
I agree that volatile-izing everything in the vicinity is a sucky
solution, but the last time we looked at this there did not seem to
be a better one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2012-08-01 04:05:26 | Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-31 20:03:32 | Re: build postgresql on Mac OS X mountain lion with ossp-uuid |