| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Robert E(dot) Bruccoleri" <bruc(at)stone(dot)congenomics(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: bad performance on irix |
| Date: | 2002-03-18 16:36:50 |
| Message-ID: | 29496.1016469410@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es> forwards:
>> It's using the spinlocks
>> for some locks, but semaphores for others.
That doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, if HAS_TEST_AND_SET
is defined in the config header, the executable will just plain fail to
build if there's no tas implementation, because lmgr/spin.c won't be
compiled. And I sure don't see how some of the locks might be
implemented one way and some the other.
Which ones do you think are being implemented as semaphores, and what's
your evidence?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-03-18 16:43:18 | Re: Again, sorry, caching. |
| Previous Message | Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro | 2002-03-18 16:32:34 | Fw: bad performance on irix |