Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Date: 2012-06-26 18:50:51
Message-ID: 10706.1340736651@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> writes:
> Now that the scene is set, here's the simple question: Why all this? Why not
> simply use posix mutexes which, on modern platforms, will map to efficient
> implementations like adaptive mutexes or futexes?

(1) They do not exist everywhere.
(2) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they'd make things better.

If someone cared to rectify (2), we could consider how to use them as an
alternative implementation.  But if you start with "let's not support
any platforms that don't have this feature", you're going to get a cold
reception.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nils GorollDate: 2012-06-26 19:05:12
Subject: Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-06-26 18:47:55
Subject: Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group