> This is a very nice way to do this. In general, if we can count on having
> GCC we should use the GCC inlines.
> Hmmmm, on that note, the current sources are factored:
> #if defined(linux)
> #if defined(x86)
> // x86 code
> #else if defined(sparc)
> // sparc code
> // all non linux
> I think that the real commonality might better be expressed as:
> #if defined(gcc)
> // all gcc variants
> // no gcc
> As GCC has a unique (but common to gcc!) "asm" facility. This would allow
> all the free unixes and many of the comercial ones to share the same
> asm implementation which should make it easier to get it right on all the
> Since I am planning another revision, does anyone object to this?
> > On the weird side, after I updated to the current sources, the backend
> > dies on me whenever I try to delete a database, whether from psql with
> > 'drop database test' or from the command line with 'destroydb test'.
> Try making the 's_lock_test' target in src/backend/storage/buffer/Makefile.
> It will let you be sure that spinlocks are working.
> Just btw, I have been doing some testing based on Bruce's reservations about
> the inline vs call implementation of spinlocks, and will be posting an updated
> set of patches and the results of my testing "real soon now".
> Now that I have at least anoncvs access to the current tree, I think I can
> do this with fewer iterations (crossing fingers...).
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oliver Elphick||Date: 1998-05-25 04:33:23|
|Subject: Use of password/crypt authentication|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-05-25 03:57:58|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Query cancel and OOB data|