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@snowman.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@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +