Re: Fw: Fw: bad performance on irix
От | Robert E. Bruccoleri |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fw: Fw: bad performance on irix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200203182104.QAA01244@stone.congenomics.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tom, The evidence is from the Process Activity Recorder, an Irix utility similar to strace the reports syscall usage. A number of semop's are performed in the operation of backend. Luis can send you specifics. --Bob Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo@atc.unican.es> > Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; "Robert E. Bruccoleri" > <bruc@stone.congenomics.com> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:36 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: [HACKERS] bad performance on irix > > > > "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo@atc.unican.es> forwards: > > >> It's using the spinlocks > > >> for some locks, but semaphores for others. > > > > That doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, if HAS_TEST_AND_SET > > is defined in the config header, the executable will just plain fail to > > build if there's no tas implementation, because lmgr/spin.c won't be > > compiled. And I sure don't see how some of the locks might be > > implemented one way and some the other. > > > > Which ones do you think are being implemented as semaphores, and what's > > your evidence? > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+ | Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | email: bruc@acm.org | | P.O. Box 314 | URL: http://www.congen.com/~bruc | | Pennington, NJ 08534 | | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: