Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Isn't this the same issue which has prompted multiple people to propose
> (sometimes with code, as I recall) to rip out our internal spinlock
> system and replace it with kernel-backed calls which do it better,
> specifically by dealing with issues like the above?  Have you seen those
> threads in the past?  Any thoughts about moving in that direction?

All of the proposals of that sort that I've seen had a flavor of
"my OS is the only one that matters".  While I don't object to
platform-dependent implementations of spinlocks as such, they're not
much of a cure for a generic performance issue.
        regards, tom lane