Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Date: 2012-06-26 18:50:51
Message-ID: 10706.1340736651@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> writes:
> Now that the scene is set, here's the simple question: Why all this? Why not
> simply use posix mutexes which, on modern platforms, will map to efficient
> implementations like adaptive mutexes or futexes?

(1) They do not exist everywhere.
(2) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they'd make things better.

If someone cared to rectify (2), we could consider how to use them as an
alternative implementation. But if you start with "let's not support
any platforms that don't have this feature", you're going to get a cold
reception.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nils Goroll 2012-06-26 19:05:12 Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2012-06-26 18:47:55 Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side