Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Think harder... one processor != one process...
> Well sure, but you don't want a spinlock in that case.
Actually you do, when the normal case is that you don't have to block.
You want it to fall through as quickly as possible in the success case
(the blocking case is going to suck no matter what). Given the present
set of available/portable technologies, spinlocks win.
If you've got a better alternative, educate us ...
regards, tom lane