| 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: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Date: | 2002-01-04 04:46:04 |
| Message-ID: | 200201040446.g044k4a21125@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, so now we know that while the new lock code handles the select(1)
> > problem better, we also know that on AIX the old select(1) code wasn't
> > as bad as we thought.
>
> It still seems that the select() blocking method should be a loser.
No question the new locking code is better. It just frustrates me we
can't get something to show that.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 04:55:03 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:44:32 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 04:55:03 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:44:32 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |