Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why is this a good idea?
> "In spirit of incremental improvement":
> (1) The spinlock itself are light weight than the LWLock here and we can
> reduce the lock contention a little bit in AbsorbFsyncRequests();
Spinlock-based coding is inherently much more fragile than LWLock-based
coding. I'm against changing things in that direction unless a
substantial performance improvement can be gained. You didn't offer
any evidence of improvement at all.
> (2) Don't need the CRITICAL SECTION in AbsorbFsyncRequests() any more;
Really? I think this coding still breaks, rather badly, if
RememberFsyncRequest fails. Certainly the reasons for needing a
critical section have nothing to do with what kind of lock is used.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
