"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>> I've looked at this before and I think it's a nonstarter;
>> increasing the
>> size of a spinlock to 128 bytes is just not reasonable.
> Well, the performance is unreasonably poor, so its time to do something,
> which might if it is unreasonable for the general case would need to be
> port specific.
Well, it might be worth allocating a full 128 bytes just for the fixed
LWLocks (BufMgrLock and friends) and skimping on the per-buffer locks,
which should be seeing far less contention than the fixed locks anyway.
But first lets see some evidence that this actually helps?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
