On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 Neil Conway wrote : > Amazingly, there *are* lock-free hash table > algorithms (e.g. [1]), but at first glance they seem pretty complex, and
It is a little scary when I read the lock-free hash table algorithm needs a theorem prover to prove its correctness. I'd guess maintaining such code is hard. > I'm not sure how much they would help (we'd still need some form of > synchronization to protect access to buffer flags etc.) I think the > better route to fixing this problem is just rethinking how we do locking > in the bufmgr. I completely agree. Ultimately, if a piece of code has "true" contention, i.e. the contention was not due to coarse-grain locking, then perhaps redesigning the algorithm is a better solution. I certainly have no idea what is the code of the bufmgr looks like. May the problem here be coarse-grain locking? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
