"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It looks like padding out LWLock struct would ensure that each of those
> were in separate cache lines?
I've looked at this before and I think it's a nonstarter; increasing the
size of a spinlock to 128 bytes is just not reasonable. (Remember there
are two per buffer.) Also, there's no evidence it would actually help
anything, because the contention we have been able to measure is on only
one particular lock (BufMgrLock) anyway. But feel free to try it to see
if you can see a difference.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
