Re: spinlock contention

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> user-32: none(1.0),atomicinc(14.4),pg_lwlock_cas(22.1),cmpxchng(41.2),pg_lwlock(588.2),spin(1264.7)
>
> I may not be following all this correctly, but doesn't this suggest a
> huge potential upside for the cas based patch you posted upthread when
> combined with your earlier patches that were bogging down on spinlock
> contentionl?

Well, you'd think so, but in fact that patch makes it slower.  Don't
ask me why, 'cuz I dunno.  :-(

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company