Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2001-12-29 19:37:15
Message-ID: 200112291937.fBTJbFG28196@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

> It would seem, therefore, that lwlock.c's behavior of immediately
> granting the lock to released waiters is not such a good idea after all.
> Perhaps we should release waiters but NOT grant them the lock; when they
> get to run, they have to loop back, try to get the lock, and possibly go
> back to sleep if they fail. This apparent waste of cycles is actually
> beneficial because it saves context swaps overall.

Another question: Is there a way to release buffer locks without
aquiring the master lock?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-12-29 19:45:28 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-12-29 19:35:49 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-12-29 19:45:28 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-12-29 19:35:49 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem