On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the latch if
the buffer wasn't dirty already. Setting a latch that's already set is fast,
but surely it's even faster to not even try.
That seems reasonable. Revised patch is attached.
Yeah, I'd like to see a micro-benchmark of a worst-case scenario. I'm a bit
worried about the impact on systems with a lot of CPUs. If you have a lot of
CPUs writing to the same cache line that contains the latch's flag, that
might get expensive.
Also reasonable, but I don't think that I'll get around to it until
after the final commitfest deadline.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 10 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedJan 4, '12 at 5:58a
activeJan 27, '12 at 7:17a
posts10
users3
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase