Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> And then you have fabulous things like:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/102145/
> (OSX defines _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED but does not actually support
> it.)

> Seems not very well tested in any case.

> It might be worthwhile testing futexes on Linux though, they are
> specifically supported on any kind of shared memory (shm/mmap/fork/etc)
> and quite well tested.

Yeah, a Linux-specific replacement of spinlocks with futexes seems like
a lot safer idea than "let's rely on posix mutexes everywhere".  It's
still unproven whether it'd be an improvement, but you could expect to
prove it one way or the other with a well-defined amount of testing.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability at 2012-06-26 21:44:42 from Martijn van Oosterhout

Responses

• experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux at 2012-06-26 22:58:47 from Nils Goroll

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Daniel Farina	Date: 2012-06-26 22:12:41
	Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Previous:	From: Kevin Grittner	Date: 2012-06-26 22:05:27
	Subject: Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal