> This still leaves me undecided whether to apply the first or second
> version of the LWLock patch.

I vote for the second.  Logically it makes more sense, and my guess is
that the first patch wins only if there are enough CPU's available to
run all the newly-awoken processes.

-- 
  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 2002-01-04 23:13:59 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tatsuo Ishii	Date: 2002-01-05 01:25:32
	Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:	From: Matthew Kirkwood	Date: 2002-01-05 00:27:50
	Subject: Re: O_DIRECT use

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:	From: Tatsuo Ishii	Date: 2002-01-05 01:25:32
	Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:	From: Simeo Reig	Date: 2002-01-04 23:34:57
	Subject: Re: Sending lot of records