Re: better atomics - v0.2

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Date: 2013-11-19T15:37:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> The only animal we have that doesn't support quiet inlines today is
> HP-UX/ac++, and I think - as in patch 1 in the series - we might be able
> to simply suppress the warning there.

Or just not worry about it, if it's only a warning?  Or does the warning
mean code bloat (lots of useless copies of the inline function)?

			regards, tom lane


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