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

• Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem at 2002-01-03 17:41:12 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem at 2002-01-04 04:55:03 from Tom Lane
• Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem at 2002-01-04 04:59:11 from Jeffrey W. Baker

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-odbc by date

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