RE: Performance TODO items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mikheev, Vadim
Subject RE: Performance TODO items
Date
Msg-id 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166FB@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Performance TODO items  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Performance TODO items  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > > We could use POSIX spinlocks/semaphores now but we
> > > don't because of performance, right?
> > 
> > No. As long as no one proved with test that mutexes are bad for
> > performance...
> > Funny, such test would require ~ 1 day of work.
> 
> Good question. I know the number of function calls to spinlock stuff
> is huge. Seems real semaphores may be a big win on multi-cpu boxes.

Ok, being tired of endless discussions I'll try to use mutexes instead
of spinlocks and run pgbench on my Solaris WS 10 and E4500 (4 CPU) boxes.

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance TODO items
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function.