On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I admit that block is longer than any of our existing spinlock blocks. > However, it's important for performance. I tried using a lwlock earlier, and > that negated the gains. So if that's a serious objection, then let's resolve > that now before I spend any more time on other aspects of the patch. Any > ideas how to make that block shorter?
We shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse. The point of keeping spinlock acquisitions short is to improve performance by preventing excess spinning. If the performance is better with a spinlock than with an lwlock, then clearly the spinning isn't excessive, or at least not in the case you tested. That having been said, shorter critical sections are always good, of course... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers