Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-05-09T06:25:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 02:10:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Should we split this patch into two parts, as they aim at tackling two > different cases then? One for LWLockConflictsWithVar() and > LWLockReleaseClearVar() which are the straight-forward pieces > (using one pg_atomic_write_u64() in LWLockUpdateVar instead), then > a second for LWLockUpdateVar()? I have been studying that a bit more, and I'd like to take this suggestion back. Apologies for the noise. -- Michael
Commits
-
Optimize pg_atomic_exchange_u32 and pg_atomic_exchange_u64.
- 64b1fb5f0326 17.0 cited
-
Document more assumptions of LWLock variable changes with WAL inserts
- 66d86d4201b3 17.0 landed
-
Optimize WAL insertion lock acquisition and release with some atomics
- 71e4cc6b8ec6 17.0 landed
-
Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a LWLock's wait queue.
- 008608b9d510 9.6.0 cited