| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) |
| Date: | 2013-05-16 16:08:40 |
| Message-ID: | 15978.1368720520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Isn't this the same issue which has prompted multiple people to propose
> (sometimes with code, as I recall) to rip out our internal spinlock
> system and replace it with kernel-backed calls which do it better,
> specifically by dealing with issues like the above? Have you seen those
> threads in the past? Any thoughts about moving in that direction?
All of the proposals of that sort that I've seen had a flavor of
"my OS is the only one that matters". While I don't object to
platform-dependent implementations of spinlocks as such, they're not
much of a cure for a generic performance issue.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-05-16 16:24:55 | Re: counting algorithm for incremental matview maintenance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-16 16:05:06 | Re: Logging of PAM Authentication Failure |