Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 857.1460561432@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> No, you're ignoring my point, which is what happens on single-CPU >> 32-bit machines, and whether we aren't going to destroy performance >> on low-end machines in pursuit of better performance on high-end. > One of us is confused, or we're just talking past each other, because > I don't think I'm ignoring your point at all. In fact, I think I just > responded to it rather directly. I agree that the exact risk you are > describing exists. However, the multiple spinlock cycles that you are > concerned about will only occur on a platform that doesn't support > 64-bit atomics. In order to test whether there is a performance > problem on such hardware, or how serious that problem is, we'd need to > have access to such hardware, and I don't know where to find any such > hardware. Do you? As Andres says, low-end ARM machines are probably the most common such hardware right now. I have two non-ARM machines in the buildfarm that certainly haven't got such instructions (prairiedog and gaur/pademelon). Now I wouldn't propose that we need to concern ourselves very much with performance on those two decade-plus-old platforms, but I do think that performance on small ARM machines is still of interest. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: