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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
