Neil, where are we on this? Should we add comments? Add a TODO? A patch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Conway wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 23:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > It is not a 100% solution because it does not > > cover the case where a waiting exclusive locker is released, then a new > > shared locker arrives at the lock before the exclusive locker is given > > any cycles to acquire the lock. However I don't see any cure for the > > latter problem that's not worse than the disease > > Yeah, I don't think this is a problem -- eventually the exclusive waiter > will win the coin flip anyway. > > > On the other hand we might consider that this isn't a big problem and > > just leave things as they are. We haven't seen any indication that > > starvation is a real problem in practice, and so it might be better to > > avoid extra trips through the kernel scheduler. > > Yes, I'm a little concerned about applying a patch to address what is, > so far, an entirely academic concern -- especially if it might hurt > performance. > > -Neil > > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
