Re: sinval synchronization considered harmful

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, as you say, it seems really, really
> difficult to hit that in practice, but I don't see a way of getting
> rid of the theoretical possibility without either (1) a spinlock or
> (2) a fence.  (Of course, on x86, the fence could be optimized down to
> a compiler barrier.)  I guess the question is "should we worry about
> that?".

Perhaps the answer lies in a different direction altogether?

Let me ask a few questions to stimulate a different solution

* Can we do this using an active technique (e.g. signals) rather than
a passive one (reading a counter?)

* Can we partition the sinval lock, so we have multiple copies? That
increases the task for those who trigger an invalidation, but will
relieve the pressure for most readers.

* Can we put the sinval info in a different place? e.g. inside each
lock partition.

* Why do we have a different mechanism for cache invalidation
internally (sinval) to the one we offer externally (LISTEN/NOTIFY)?
Why don't we have just one?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services