Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets

On 10/06/15 17:01, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > - The fact that well behaved mutexes have a higher initial cost could even
>> >   motivate good use of them rather than optimize misuse.
> Well. There's many locks in a RDBMS that can't realistically be
> avoided. So optimizing for no and moderate contention isn't something
> you can simply forgo.

Let's get back to my initial suggestion:

On 10/06/15 16:07, Nils Goroll wrote:
> I think it would
> still be worth considering to do away with the roll-your-own spinlocks on
> systems whose posix mutexes are known to behave.

Where we use the mutex patch we have not seen any relevant negative impact -
neither in benchmarks nor in production.

So, yes, postgres should still work fine on a 2-core laptop and I don't see any
reason why using posix mutexes *where they are known to behave* would do any harm.

And, to be honest, Linux is quite dominant, so solving the issue for this
platform would be a start at least.

Nils