> > New TODO entries are:
> > * Order duplicate index entries by tid
> In other words - add tid to index key: very old idea.
I was thinking during index creation, it would be nice to order them by
tid, but not do lots of work to keep it that way.
> > * Add queue of backends waiting for spinlock
> We shouldn't mix two different approaches for different
> kinds of short-time internal locks - in one cases we need in
> light lmgr (when we're going to keep lock long enough, eg for IO)
> and in another cases we'd better to proceed with POSIX' mutex-es
> or semaphores instead of spinlocks. Queueing backends waiting
> for spinlock sounds like nonsense - how are you going to protect
> such queue? With spinlocks? -:)
Yes, I guess so but hopefully we can spin waiting for the queue lock
rather than sleep. We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
don't because of performance, right?
Should we be spinning waiting for spinlock on multi-cpu machines? Is
that the answer?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fernando Nasser||Date: 2001-07-30 17:24:26|
|Subject: Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"|
|Previous:||From: Mikheev, Vadim||Date: 2001-07-30 17:12:22|
|Subject: RE: Performance TODO items|