David Gould wrote:
> Here is the Spinlock back off patch I promised. This does semi-random
> backoff using select() to lessen throughput degradation due to spinlock
> contention with large numbers of runnable backends.
Does this actually use some sort of random number generator? I'm
thinking that this may not be entirely necessary. With Ethernet, this
is needed to avoid another colission, but with locks, one process is
guaranteed to get a lock.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-04-30 04:21:15|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch|
|Previous:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 1998-04-30 03:40:28|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unlock the vacuum|