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

Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Date: 2003-09-12 04:07:14
Message-ID: 20030912010548.V57860@ganymede.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Well, the problem was that we defined HAS_TEST_AND_SET inside the ports.
> I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.

From what I understand, "not working properly" means slow, not broken, no?
Which means ppl could submit a problem report and it could be fixed for
v7.4.1 ... its not so much  'not working properly' as it is 'not optimal
performance' ...

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-09-12 04:09:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-12 04:06:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-09-12 04:09:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-12 04:06:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

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