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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Date: 2003-09-12 02:33:54
Message-ID: 5551.1063334034@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> it seems like a good time to get it working.

Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta. Couldn't we do
something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
on breaking everything else?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-12 02:39:20 Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-12 02:29:06 Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-12 02:39:20 Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-12 02:29:06 Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines