Re: better atomics - v0.6

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Date: 2014-09-24T18:36:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2014-09-24 14:28:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that the spinlock code separates s_lock.h (hardware implementations)
> from spin.h (a hardware-independent abstraction layer).  Perhaps there's
> room for a similar separation here.

Luckily that separation exists ;). The hardware dependant bits are in
different files than the platform independent functionality on top of
them (atomics/generic.h).

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