"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] wrote
>> I've looked at this before and I think it's a nonstarter;
>> increasing the
>> size of a spinlock to 128 bytes is just not reasonable.

> Well, the performance is unreasonably poor, so its time to do something,
> which might if it is unreasonable for the general case would need to be
> port specific.

Well, it might be worth allocating a full 128 bytes just for the fixed
LWLocks (BufMgrLock and friends) and skimping on the per-buffer locks,
which should be seeing far less contention than the fixed locks anyway.
But first lets see some evidence that this actually helps?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: LWLock cache line alignment at 2005-02-03 14:26:16 from Simon Riggs

Responses

• Re: LWLock cache line alignment at 2005-02-04 01:01:35 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-02-03 16:12:16
	Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0
Previous:	From: Martin Pitt	Date: 2005-02-03 15:58:28
	Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0