From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
Date: | 2003-09-12 13:36:54 |
Message-ID: | 200309121336.h8CDas909248@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > >> Right, though I am not sure people will know _slow_ configuration vs.
> > >> PostgreSQL is slow.
> >
> > > No, but definitely something for those discussion performance to add
> > > to their checklist :)
> >
> > > BTW, post-compile, running system ... how do you check this? Or can you?
> >
> > If we force people to give a --without-spinlocks config option to build
> > that way, then `pg_config --configure' will reveal the dirty deed ...
>
> That's not quite what I meant :) Right now, if I understood what Bruce
> was saying, if someone doesn't have spinlocks, it switches to using SysV
> Messenging, correct? In the current system, is there anything that one
> can do on a running, live system, to detect that you aren't using
> spinlocks?
No. I don't think so.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 13:40:03 | Re: massive quotes? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 13:35:11 | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 13:49:31 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-12 13:08:13 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |