Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: 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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 04:55:03
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:44:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 04:55:03
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:44:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group