Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 26863.1282850542@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>) |
| Ответы |
Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> On 08/26/2010 02:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On the more general topic of imessages, I had one other thought that
>> might be worth considering. Instead of using shared memory, what
>> about using a file that is shared between the sender and receiver?
> What would that buy us?
Not having to have a hard limit on the space for unconsumed messages?
> The current approach uses plain spinlocks, which are more efficient.
Please note the coding rule that says that the code should not execute
more than a few straight-line instructions while holding a spinlock.
If you're copying long messages while holding the lock, I don't think
spinlocks are acceptable.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: