Re: better atomics - v0.2

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:21:06PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 17:16:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:39:19PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2013-11-19 16:37:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support
> > > > > > > (although it would surely be nice).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features.
> > > > > > Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even
> > > > > if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline
> > > > > support is realistic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win
> > > > > by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with
> > > > > multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is
> > > > > significant.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified. All my good
> > > > work gets rewritten. ;-)
> > >
> > > That and HeapKeyTest() alone are sufficient reason for this ;)
> >
> > Has there been any performance testing on this rewrite to use atomics?
> > If so, can I missed it.
>
> Do you mean inline? Or atomics? If the former no, if the latter
> yes. I've started on it because of
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130926225545.GB26663%40awork2.anarazel.de

Yes, I was wondering about atomics. I think we know the performance
characteristics of inlining.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +