Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Date: 2003-09-12 02:23:31
Message-ID: 5464.1063333411@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Prompted by confusion over Itanium/Opterion, I have written a patch to
> improve the way we define spinlocks for platforms and cpu's.

The main.c part of the patch strikes me as irrelevant to the claimed
purpose and unlikely to accomplish anything except breaking things.
Do you have a system the main.c "__alpha" code is relevant to, on which
to test that you did not break it?

Other than that, it looks like basically a good idea.  But...

> I plan to apply this to 7.4.

This seems like living dangerously.  You do realize that this patch will
invalidate our trust that the code works on every single supported
platform?  I think beta3 may be a bit late in the game for this sort of
thing, because we've already gotten a good bit of the testing we can
expect to get for lesser-used platforms during this beta cycle.

At the very least I'd like to see the decision discussed on -hackers
and not buried in -patches.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 02:28:35
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 02:20:36
Subject: Re: massive quotes?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 02:28:35
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 01:43:16
Subject: Reorganization of spinlock defines

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group