Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 06.03.2012 14:52, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> This also strikes me that the usage of the spinlock insertpos_lck might
>> not be OK in ReserveXLogInsertLocation() because a few dozen instructions
>> can be performed while holding the spinlock....
> I admit that block is longer than any of our existing spinlock blocks.
> However, it's important for performance. I tried using a lwlock earlier,
> and that negated the gains. So if that's a serious objection, then let's
> resolve that now before I spend any more time on other aspects of the
> patch. Any ideas how to make that block shorter?
How long is the current locked code exactly --- does it contain a loop?
I'm not sure where the threshold of pain is for length of time holding a
spinlock. I wouldn't go out of the way to avoid using a spinlock for
say a hundred instructions, at least not unless it was a very
high-contention lock. But sleeping while holding a spinlock is right out.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
