Re: Sync Rep v17

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> A spinlock can be used only for very short-term operation like
>> read/write of some shared-variables. The operation on the queue
>> is not short, so should be protected by LWLock, I think.
>
> There's no need to sleep while holding locks and the operations are very
> short in most cases. The code around it isn't trivial, but that's no
> reason to use LWlocks.
>
> LWlocks are just spinlocks plus sem sleeps, so I don't see the need for
> that in the current code. Other views welcome.

The following description in in src/backend/storage/lmgr/README
leads me to further think that the spinlock should not be used there.
Because, in the patch, while the spinlock is being held, whole of the
waiting list (if there are many concurrent running transactions, this
might be large) can be searched, SetLatch can be called and
elog(WARNING) can be called (though this should not happen).

----------------
* Spinlocks. These are intended for *very* short-term locks. If a lock
is to be held more than a few dozen instructions, or across any sort of
kernel call (or even a call to a nontrivial subroutine), don't use a
spinlock. Spinlocks are primarily used as infrastructure for lightweight
locks. They are implemented using a hardware atomic-test-and-set
instruction, if available. Waiting processes busy-loop until they can
get the lock. There is no provision for deadlock detection, automatic
release on error, or any other nicety. There is a timeout if the lock
cannot be gotten after a minute or so (which is approximately forever in
comparison to the intended lock hold time, so this is certainly an error
condition).
----------------

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center