> > Can you submit an appropriate patch that can be included in the
> > mega-patch to be created on Sunday?
> Just a warning that this is not going to be easy. We have OS-specific
> code for spinlocks in include/storage/s_lock.h and
> backend/storage/buffer/s_lock.c. So each S_LOCK macro call has to
> have its test-and-set logic de-coupled with its
> while-lock-fail-try-again logic.
> Most of them are easy, but some like VAX:
> #define S_LOCK(addr) __asm__("1: bbssi $0,(%0),1b": :"r"(addr))
> are hard to de-couple. Now, I did not know we supported NetBSD on
> VAX. Does it work, anyone? Can I remove it?
NetBSD on VAX in on our supported list, and was verified for v6.3 by Tom
> This is going to be pretty tough to test on every platform we support,
> so if it is done now, it will have to be done carefully.
Is this behavior in v6.2.x? In any case, if it is anything but minimally
trivial, it should be given a test on every supported platform, since it
hits the heart of the platform-specific code, doesn't it? Seems like it
should be put into the CVS tree and shaken out until the next release...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 1998-03-17 03:49:04|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] patches for 6.2.1p6|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-03-17 03:21:53|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] UPDATE statement ORACLE 6 compatible|