On 2015-12-17 09:47:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I'd consider using a LWLock instead of a spinlock here. I've seen this > > contended in a bunch of situations, and the queued behaviour, combined > > with directed wakeups on the OS level, ought to improve the worst case > > behaviour measurably. > > Amit had the idea a while back of trying to replace the HASHHDR mutex > with something based on atomic ops. It seems hard to avoid the > attendant A-B-A problems but maybe there's a way.
It'd really like to see it being replaced by a queuing lock (i.e. lwlock) before we go there. And then maybe partition the freelist, and make nentries an atomic. Just doing those might already be good enough and should be a lot easier. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
