Re: Concurrent free-lock

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard <jg(at)rilk(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent free-lock
Date: 2005-01-24 23:50:10
Message-ID: 41F589B2.1050904@tvi.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil,

Here is some pretty good info on lock-free structures... I'm pretty sure
I tested their code in a multithreaded high-concurrency environment and
experienced the problems I was discussing.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/lock-free/

Neil Conway wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 08:35 -0700, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
>
>>Lock free data structures are cool... but not really applicable to
>>databases. They have a high maintenance overhead, severe complexity,
>>and will fail when there are many concurrent inserts/deletes to the
>>structure.
>>
>>
>
>Can you elaborate on when they would fail, and why?
>
>It might be worth considering lock-free data structures for certain
>parts of the backend, but I'm skeptical they would be much of a win over
>locking most of the time.
>
>-Neil
>
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-01-25 00:07:07 Re: Concurrent free-lock
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-01-24 23:23:57 Re: Concurrent free-lock