Tom Lane writes: > > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock > > implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than > > using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock > > could not be used in this context? > > Are you confusing LWLockAcquire with TAS spinlocks?
No. > If you're saying that we don't have an implementation of TAS for > SGI hardware, then feel free to contribute one. If you are wanting to > replace LWLocks with spinlocks, then you are sadly mistaken, IMHO. This touches on my question. Why am I mistaken? I don't understand. BTW, about 5 years ago, I rewrote the TAS spinlocks for the SGI platform to make it work correctly. The current implementation is fine. +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+ | Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | P.O. Box 314 | URL: http://www.congen.com/~bruc | | Pennington, NJ 08534 | | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
