Re: lwlocks and starvation

OK, either you have to own the issue or I have to add something to the
TODO list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 21:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Neil, where are we on this? Should we add comments? Add a TODO? A patch?
>
> I'm not sure what the right resolution is. As I said, I don't think it's
> wise to apply a patch that could have a significant impact on
> performance without (a) testing its performance effect and/or (b) having
> any evidence that the problem it addresses actually effects anyone in
> the real world. I'll try to run some benchmarks when I get a chance.
>
> I wrote up most of a patch to implement the "wake up all shared wakers
> on LWLockRelease()" behavior to see how that would change performance,
> but the patch has a subtle bug in it that I can't seem to find (I've
> attached it -- comments welcome).
>
> Certainly if we decide to leave things as they are I think we ought to
> document why the behavior is intentional, but I don't think we have
> enough data to make that decision yet.
>
> -Neil
>

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073