Hi Andres,

Are you planning to continue working on this? Summarizing the discussion so far:

* Robert listed a bunch of little cleanup tasks (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozshvvqjakul6p3kdvzvpibtgkzoti3m+fvvjg5v+x...@mail.gmail.com). Amit posted yet more detailed commends.

* We talked about changing the file layout. I think everyone is happy with your proposal here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140702131729.gp21...@awork2.anarazel.de, with an overview description of what goes where (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYuxfsm2dSy48=jgutrh1mozrvmjlhgqrfku7_wpv-...@mail.gmail.com)

* Talked about nested spinlocks. The consensus seems to be to (continue to) forbid nested spinlocks, but allow atomic operations while holding a spinlock. When atomics are emulated with spinlocks, it's OK to acquire the emulation spinlock while holding another spinlock.

* Talked about whether emulating atomics with spinlocks is a good idea. You posted performance results showing that at least with the patch to use atomics to implement LWLocks, the emulation performs more or less the same as the current spinlock-based implementation. I believe everyone was more or less satisfied with that.

So ISTM we have consensus that the approach to spinlock emulation and nesting stuff is OK. To finish the patch, you'll just need to address the file layout and the laundry list of other little details that have been raised.

- Heikki

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to