On 2016-03-31 06:54:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work. I'll try to write a > > patch for approach 1). > > Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now > need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation? That's has a somewhat > uncomfortable sound to it.
Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2): > 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid > embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic > op in a number of cases. precisely because of that concern. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
