"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 now).
> > 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. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
