Simon Riggs wrote:
> ...and BTW, what is MMCacheLock?? is that an attempt at padding already?
One would hope not, as it would be a totally braindead attempt :) It
appears to have been formerly used by smgr/mm.c; when that was removed,
the MMCacheLock should have been removed but was not. Barring any
objections, I'll remove it from HEAD tomorrow.
> It looks like padding out LWLock struct would ensure that each of those
> were in separate cache lines?
Sounds like it might be worth trying; since it would be trivial to
implement for testing purposes, I'd be curious to see if this improves
performance, and/or has any effect on the CS storm issue.
-Neil
