Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Min Xu (Hsu)" <xu(at)cs(dot)wisc(dot)edu>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-14 07:15:54
Message-ID: 017501c5b8fc$25c4efe0$0f01a8c0@zaphod
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> But the cmpb instruction in the 8.0 version of TAS would have done that,
> and I think we've already established that the cmpb is a loss on most
> machines (except maybe single-physical-CPU Xeons).

Note that this was a regular Pentium 4 system, not a Xeon.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2005-09-14 07:18:14 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Michael Paesold 2005-09-14 06:36:52 Bug with cursor declaration in plpgsql? (Repost)