Re: lwlocks and starvation

Neil, where are we on this? Should we add comments? Add a TODO? A patch?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 23:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It is not a 100% solution because it does not
> > cover the case where a waiting exclusive locker is released, then a new
> > shared locker arrives at the lock before the exclusive locker is given
> > any cycles to acquire the lock. However I don't see any cure for the
> > latter problem that's not worse than the disease
>
> Yeah, I don't think this is a problem -- eventually the exclusive waiter
> will win the coin flip anyway.
>
> > On the other hand we might consider that this isn't a big problem and
> > just leave things as they are. We haven't seen any indication that
> > starvation is a real problem in practice, and so it might be better to
> > avoid extra trips through the kernel scheduler.
>
> Yes, I'm a little concerned about applying a patch to address what is,
> so far, an entirely academic concern -- especially if it might hurt
> performance.
>
> -Neil
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073