Horton

Re: better atomics - v0.2

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Date: 2013-11-19T15:34:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> > (although it would surely be nice).
> 
> inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
> Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.

But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even
if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline
support is realistic.

I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win
by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with
multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is
significant.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a LWLock's wait queue.

  2. Improve LWLock scalability.

  3. Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.

  4. Alter the configure script to fail immediately if the C compiler does not