Re: lwlocks and starvation
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: lwlocks and starvation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 41A483FB.9070106@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: lwlocks and starvation (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: lwlocks and starvation
Re: lwlocks and starvation Re: lwlocks and starvation |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I thought the new readers will sit after the writer in the FIFO queue so > the writer will not starve. AFAICS, that is not the case. See lwlock.c, circa line 264: in LW_SHARED mode, we check if "exclusive" is zero; if so, we acquire the lock (increment the shared lock count and do not block). And "exclusive" is set non-zero only when we _acquire_ a lock in exclusive mode, not when we add an exclusive waiter to the wait queue. (Speaking of which, the "exclusive" field is declared as a "char"; I wonder if it wouldn't be more clear to declare it as "bool", and treat it as a boolean field. The storage/alignment requirements should be the same (bool is a typedef for char, at least a C compiler), but IMHO it would be more logical.) -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: