"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> So I'm thinking the right answer is to make all the spinlock macros be
> the equivalent of the NoHoldoff case.  It's reasonable for LWLockAcquire
> to do a HOLD_INTERRUPTS, but I don't see the justification for doing it
> at the spinlock level.
I agree on this. But before changing it, we need to inspect those spinlocks 
one by one to making sure two things (1) if there is out-of-line-call, make 
sure no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); (2) ImmediateInterruptsOK is false (99% sure 

> I'm a bit worried about doing that across-the-board, since at least in
> theory a vendor-supplied qsort ought to be tuned for the hardware et al.
> I think it would be better to substitute our own qsort only on those
> platforms where we have specifically proved it's a win.
Our tests indicates that BSD version is better ... but it is just a 
home-brew test.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to