Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 12382.1272044328@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance (Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes: > Um, you have been burned by exactly this on x86 also: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg01265.php Yeah, we never did figure out exactly how come you were observing that failure on Intel-ish hardware. I was under the impression that Intel machines didn't have weak-memory-ordering behavior. I wonder whether your compiler had rearranged the code in ProcArrayAdd so that the increment happened before the array element store at the machine-code level. I think it would be entitled to do that under standard C semantics, since that ProcArrayStruct pointer isn't marked volatile. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: