Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com> writes:
> I'd remind everyone that the spinlock stuff is entirely optional at
> build time.
Not really. The performance hit for not having hardware spinlocks is
so severe that it's not considered a reasonable fallback.
> I also think it immensely useful to replace all of the tas subsystem
> with cas so that one could reliabily lock these atomics with the process
> id of the locker.
I cannot, ever once in my years working on Postgres, remember having
wanted such a thing. I am strongly against mucking with the spinlock
code for mere aesthetics --- it's too fragile and hard to test,
especially on platforms you don't have ready access to.
In short, it ain't broken and we don't need to fix it.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-04-30 00:16:16|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64|
|Previous:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2006-04-29 15:42:48|
|Subject: Re: BUG #2412: Foreing key accept nulls|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-04-29 21:04:35|
|Subject: Re: Patch for BUG #2073: Can't drop sequence when created |
|Previous:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2006-04-29 19:27:03|
|Subject: Re: Cleaning up multiply-defined-symbol warnings on OS X|