Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52F8D45A.409@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/31/2014 11:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-01-28 21:27:29 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> 1) I've added an abstracted atomic ops implementation. Needs a fair >>> amount of work, also submitted as a separate CF entry. (Patch 1 & 2) >> >> Commit 220b34331f77effdb46798ddd7cca0cffc1b2858 caused bitrot when >> applying 0002-Very-basic-atomic-ops-implementation.patch. Please >> rebase. > > I've pushed a rebased version of the patchset to > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/andresfreund/postgres.git > branch rwlock contention. > 220b34331f77effdb46798ddd7cca0cffc1b2858 actually was the small problem, > ea9df812d8502fff74e7bc37d61bdc7d66d77a7f was the major PITA. > > I plan to split the atomics patch into smaller chunks before > reposting. Imo the "Convert the PGPROC->lwWaitLink list into a dlist > instead of open coding it." is worth being applied independently from > the rest of the series, it simplies code and it fixes a bug... I committed a fix for the WakeupWaiters() bug now, without the rest of the "open coding" patch. Converting lwWaitLInk into a dlist is probably a good idea, but seems better to fix the bug separately, for the sake of git history if nothing else. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: