Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability
Date
Msg-id 10706.1340736651@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability  (Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de>)
Responses Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability  (Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de> writes:
> Now that the scene is set, here's the simple question: Why all this? Why not
> simply use posix mutexes which, on modern platforms, will map to efficient
> implementations like adaptive mutexes or futexes?

(1) They do not exist everywhere.
(2) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they'd make things better.

If someone cared to rectify (2), we could consider how to use them as an
alternative implementation.  But if you start with "let's not support
any platforms that don't have this feature", you're going to get a cold
reception.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side
Next
From: Nils Goroll
Date:
Subject: Re: why roll-your-own s_lock? / improving scalability