On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > user-32: > none(1.0),atomicinc(14.4),pg_lwlock_cas(22.1),cmpxchng(41.2),pg_lwlock(588.2),spin(1264.7)
I may not be following all this correctly, but doesn't this suggest a huge potential upside for the cas based patch you posted upthread when combined with your earlier patches that were bogging down on spinlock contentionl? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
