Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
От | Aidan Van Dyk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimPLKarL3OjCRvV7azqTyimB0Wg7gHcau+q1w9v@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just a small point of clarification - you need to have both that >> unknown archtecture, and that architecture has to have postgres >> process running simultaneously on difference CPUs with different >> caches that are incoherent to have those problems. > > Sure you do. But so what? Are you going to compile PostgreSQL and > implement TAS as a simple store and read-fence as a simple load? How > likely is that to work out well? If I was trying to "port" PostgreSQL to some strange architecture, and my strange architecture didtt' have all the normal TAS and memory bariers stuff because it was only a UP system with no cache, then yes, and it would work out well ;-) If it was some strange SMP architecture, I wouldn't expect *anything* to work out well if the architecture doesn't have some sort of TAS/memory barrier/cache-coherency stuff in it ;-) a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: