From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Neil Padgett <npadgett(at)redhat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Date: | 2001-07-30 18:14:18 |
Message-ID: | 200107301814.f6UIEIa17561@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that we already have a small sleep in place. After all, in
> > > order to acquite a lock, the shared memory area has to be accessed. So,
> > > the contenders for a lock both have to go through a spin lock. So, if we
> > > have the two "stuck" processes as in Tom's example, one will win at
> > > acquiring the spin lock and the other will have to wait. So, they become
> > > desynchronized, regardless of how many CPUs or what memory architecture
> > > you have.
> >
> > I see your point now, that they can't synchronize because they have to
> > go through the same semaphore and therefore get out of sync. Do they
> > get out of sync enough for one to get the lock while the other is not
> > holding it, or do the locks actually keep them in sync? I don't know
> > the answer.
> >
>
> That is a good point. With the current random sleeps it helps breaking
> the
> lockstep of the two processes, but when it is changed to a queue the
> random
> sleeps won't be there anymore.
Also most systems can't sleep less than one clock tick, 10ms, meaning
the sleeps aren't very random.
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-07-30 18:17:44 | RE: Performance TODO items |
Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 18:09:41 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-30 18:22:30 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-07-30 18:09:41 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |