Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > 'K, now, I know we acquire all our shared_buffers on startup now ... do we
> > do the same with semaphores?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If we do acquire at the start, would it not be trivial to add a message to
> > the startup messages, based on #_of_semaphores != max_connections, that
> > tells ppl that spinlocks aren't being used?
>
> The code already knows whether it's compiled to use spinlocks or not, it
> hardly needs to test that way ;-). I thought you were asking how to
> double-check a system that's live today.
>
> I prefer Bruce's idea of a configure-time warning, myself.

I talked to Marc via IM and I think he now understand the configure
error is best --- it is the most visible way to report the failure.
He was worried about packagers missing the warning, but it is a fatal
error and requires them to enable a flag, so it is pretty clear and
anyone who packages such a binary will know what they are doing.

He is uncomfortable with the port/*.h changes at this point, so it seems
I am going to have to add Itanium/Opteron tests to most of those files.

--
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