From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Performance TODO items |
Date: | 2001-07-30 17:12:22 |
Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166F9@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> New TODO entries are:
>
> * Order duplicate index entries by tid
In other words - add tid to index key: very old idea.
> * Add queue of backends waiting for spinlock
We shouldn't mix two different approaches for different
kinds of short-time internal locks - in one cases we need in
light lmgr (when we're going to keep lock long enough, eg for IO)
and in another cases we'd better to proceed with POSIX' mutex-es
or semaphores instead of spinlocks. Queueing backends waiting
for spinlock sounds like nonsense - how are you going to protect
such queue? With spinlocks? -:)
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-30 17:15:40 | Re: Performance TODO items |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-30 17:04:11 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |