Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4])

by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA29087

for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:31:08 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id KAA27535 for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:19:47 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id KAA27535 for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:19:47 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA30328;

Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:12:10 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4])

by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA28130

for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:25:26 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.6 $) with ESMTP id VAA10512 for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:15:28 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id VAA10512 for <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:15:28 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)

by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA50745;

Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:07:23 -0400 (EDT)

phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M11649@postgresql.org Wed Aug 1 15:22:46 2001

Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M11649@postgresql.org>

Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])

by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f71JMjN09768

for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:22:45 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])

by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f71JMUf62338;

Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:22:30 -0400 (EDT)

(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M11649@postgresql.org)

Received: from sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (sectorbase2.sectorbase.com [63.88.121.62] (may be forged))

by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f71J4df57086

for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:04:40 -0400 (EDT)

(envelope-from vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM)

Received: by sectorbase2.sectorbase.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

id <PG1LSSPZ>; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:04:31 -0700

Message-ID: <3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016705@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com>

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>

To: "'pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org'" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Subject: [HACKERS] Using POSIX mutex-es

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:04:24 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="koi8-r"

Precedence: bulk

Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Status: OR

1. Just changed

TAS(lock) to pthread_mutex_trylock(lock)

S_LOCK(lock) to pthread_mutex_lock(lock)

S_UNLOCK(lock) to pthread_mutex_unlock(lock)

(and S_INIT_LOCK to share mutex-es between processes).

2. pgbench was initialized with scale 10.

SUN WS 10 (512Mb), Solaris 2.6 (I'm unable to test on E4500 -:()

-B 16384, wal_files 8, wal_buffers 256,

checkpoint_segments 64, checkpoint_timeout 3600

50 clients x 100 transactions

(after initialization DB dir was saved and before each test

copyed back and vacuum-ed).

3. No difference.

Mutex version maybe 0.5-1 % faster (eg: 37.264238 tps vs 37.083339 tps).

So - no gain, but no performance loss "from using pthread library"

(I've also run tests with 1 client), at least on Solaris.

And so - looks like we can use POSIX mutex-es and conditional variables

(not semaphores; man pthread_cond_wait) and should implement light lmgr,

probably with priority locking.

Vadim

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)