Horton

Re: SSI non-serializable UPDATE performance

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-07T01:55:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add fast paths for cases when no serializable transactions are running.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Dan Ports <drkp@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:45:54PM +0200, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yeah, I think Dan's notes about memory ordering would be good to include.
>
> I left it out initially because I didn't want to make things more
> confusing. As far as memory ordering is concerned, this is the same
> story as anything else that uses lwlocks: the spinlock memory barrier
> prevents memory accesses from being reordered before the lock is
> acquired. The only unusual thing here is that the lock in question
> isn't the one that protects the variable we're reading.
>
> But I'm OK with adding a comment if you think it helps. Patch attached.

Looks good.  Committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company