On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> So Simon's correct. >> And perhaps this explains why Jignesh is measuring an improvement on his >> benchmark. Perhaps an useful experiment would be to turn this behavior >> off and compare performance. This lack of measurement is probably the >> cause that the suggested patch to fix it was never applied. >> >> The patch is here >> http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg00935.php > > One of the reasons why my patch helps is it keeps this check intact but > allows other exclusive Wake up.. Now what PostgreSQL calls "Wakes" is in > reality just makes a variable indicating wake up and not really signalling a > process to wake up. This is a key point to note. So when the process wanting > the exclusive fights the OS Scheduling policy to finally get time on the CPU > then it check the value to see if it is allowed to wake up and potentially I'm confused. Is a process waiting for an LWLock is in a runnable state? I thought we went to sleep on a semaphore. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
