On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-09-09 17:54:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> So, that's committed, then. I think we should pick something that uses >> spinlocks and is likely to fail spectacularly if we haven't got this >> totally right yet, and de-volatilize it. And then watch to see what >> turns red in the buildfarm and/or which users start screaming. I'm >> inclined to propose lwlock.c as a candidate, since that's very widely >> used and a place where we know there's significant contention. > > Did you consider removing the volatiles from bufmgr.c? There's lots of > volatiles in there and most of them don't seem to have been added in a > principled way. I'm looking at my old patch for lockless pin/unpin of > buffers and it'd look a lot cleaner without.
I hadn't thought of it, but it sounds like a good idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
