Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:08:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > Isn't this the same issue which has prompted multiple people to propose
> > (sometimes with code, as I recall) to rip out our internal spinlock
> > system and replace it with kernel-backed calls which do it better,
> > specifically by dealing with issues like the above? Have you seen those
> > threads in the past? Any thoughts about moving in that direction?
>
> All of the proposals of that sort that I've seen had a flavor of
> "my OS is the only one that matters". While I don't object to
> platform-dependent implementations of spinlocks as such, they're not
> much of a cure for a generic performance issue.

Uh, is this an x86-64-only optimization? Seems so.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +