"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
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|