On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 02:27:00PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, I've seen cases on multi-socket machines where performance was vastly
> worse under contention with some values of spins_per_delay. With good numbers
> being quite different on smaller machines. Most new-ish server CPUs these da
Hi,
On 2024-08-27 11:16:15 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> (creating new thread from [0])
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 09:52:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > On fourth thought ... the number of tries to acquire the lock, or
> > in this case number of tries to observe the lock free, is not
> > NUM_DE
to
remove it.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/65063.1712800379%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
nathan
>From df5c0fb71f5487a7683f627be9b259882e5d0487 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:55:14 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/1] remove adaptive spins_per_delay code
---
src/backend/storage
