> 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
No. Have a look at the patch.
> 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 the case where this comes into play, one process already has the lock.
We have already collided. We are trying to limit the number of additional
David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Sbragion Denis||Date: 1998-04-30 06:38:36|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC|
|Previous:||From: Maurice Gittens||Date: 1998-04-30 06:32:16|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()|