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
-
Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a LWLock's wait queue.
- 008608b9d510 9.6.0 cited
-
Improve LWLock scalability.
- ab5194e6f617 9.5.0 cited
-
Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.
- daa7527afc22 9.4.0 cited
-
Alter the configure script to fail immediately if the C compiler does not
- d15cb38dec01 9.0.0 cited