Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-29 Thread Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
- Original Message - From: "Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:48 AM Subject: R

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-28 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
Dear Luis, I would be very interested. Replacing the IPC shared memory with an arena make a lot of sense. --Bob > > Hi Bob: > We're have been working with an sproc version of postgres and it has improve > performance over a NUMA3 origin 3000 due to IRIX implements round_robin by > defaul

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-28 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
Dear Tom, Thank you for the explanation. I did not understand what was going on in lwlock.c. My systems are all SGI Origins having between 8 and 32 processors, and I've been running PostgreSQL on them for about 5 years. These machines do provide a number of good mechanisms for hig

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-28 Thread Tom Lane
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> If you're saying that we don't have an implementation of TAS for >> SGI hardware, then feel free to contribute one. If you are wanting to >> replace LWLocks with spinlocks, then you are sadly mistaken, IMHO. > This touches

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-28 Thread Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
uot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks > Tom Lane writes: > > > > > > "Robert E. Bruccoler

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-27 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
Tom Lane writes: > > > "Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock > > implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than > > using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock > > could not be

Re: [HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-26 Thread Tom Lane
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock > implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than > using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock > could not be used in this context? Are you co

[HACKERS] Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

2002-07-26 Thread Robert E. Bruccoleri
On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock could not be used in this context? +-++