On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 23:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It is not a 100% solution because it does not > cover the case where a waiting exclusive locker is released, then a new > shared locker arrives at the lock before the exclusive locker is given > any cycles to acquire the lock. However I don't see any cure for the > latter problem that's not worse than the disease
Yeah, I don't think this is a problem -- eventually the exclusive waiter will win the coin flip anyway. > On the other hand we might consider that this isn't a big problem and > just leave things as they are. We haven't seen any indication that > starvation is a real problem in practice, and so it might be better to > avoid extra trips through the kernel scheduler. Yes, I'm a little concerned about applying a patch to address what is, so far, an entirely academic concern -- especially if it might hurt performance. -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
