On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only > > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect > > macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i.e. a > > spinlock only for the hardware that needs it). > > Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places where > there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't measure any real > slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval code, so I didn't propose > doing so at the time --- and I'm pretty dubious that this code is > sufficiently performance-critical to justify the work, either.
OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array. Thanks for your input. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
