Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
Date: 2000-11-29 04:56:49
Message-ID: 20001128225649.A5309@lerami.lerctr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001128 22:55]:
> Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> >> Here is the "Current" /usr/include/machine/lock.h:
> >> ...
> >> void	s_lock			__P((struct simplelock *));
> >> ...
> 
> Ick.  Seems like the relevant question is not so much "why did it break"
> as "how did it ever manage to work"?
> 
> I have no problem with renaming our s_lock, if that's what it takes,
> but I'm curious to know why there is a problem now and not before.
> We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
> like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...
Didn't your commit message say something about the TAS and NON-TAS
paths being the same now? 


> 
> 			regards, tom lane
-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-29 05:02:41
Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-11-29 04:55:48
Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group