Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20201124150153.GA10181@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock (Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Nov-24, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > On 04.09.2020 20:13, Andres Freund wrote: > > Re general routine: On second thought, it might actually be worth having > > it. Even just for LSNs - there's plenty places where it's useful to > > ensure a variable is at least a certain size. I think I would be in > > favor of a general helper function. > Do you mean by general helper function something like this? > > void > swap_lsn(XLogRecPtr old_value, XLogRecPtr new_value, bool to_largest) Something like that, yeah, though maybe name it "pg_atomic_increase_lsn" or some similar name that makes it clear that 1. it is supposed to use atomics 2. it can only be used to *advance* a value rather than a generic swap. (I'm not 100% clear that that's the exact API we need.) > This CF entry was inactive for a while. Alvaro, are you going to continue > working on it? Yes, please move it forward. I'll post an update sometime before the next CF.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: