Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> > when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> > it seems like a good time to get it working.
>
> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

I didn't think we had done that yet ... had we? called for port reports,
that is ... ?

> But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
> not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta. Couldn't we do
> something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
> on breaking everything else?

I just went through the whole patch myself, and as much as I like the
overall simplification, I tend to agree with Tom here on questioning the
requirement to do suck a massive change so late in the end cycle ... is
there no smaller bandaid that can be applied to handle the Opteron/Itanium
issue for v7.4, with the "cleanup patch" being applied right away after
v7.4?