| From: | Marcus Meissner <meissner(at)suse(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Erroneous PPC spinlock code |
| Date: | 2003-11-06 13:03:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20031106130334.GA1240@suse.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:08:56AM +0100, Reinhard Max wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 13:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >
> > > The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use
> > > may behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems.
> >
> > What's his evidence for that claim?
>
> Let's ask himself.
>
> > The code we have is based directly on the recommendations in the PPC
> > manuals, and has been tested on multi-CPU systems.
>
> Marcus, can you explain the details, please?
I reviewed the documentation again (at:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/esdd/articles/powerpc.html
) and it seems to agree with your opinion.
I retract my comment, leave your code as-is.
Ciao, Marcus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-11-06 14:25:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Changes to Contributor List |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2003-11-06 13:00:31 | Information Schema and constraint names not unique |