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

Re: [HACKERS] 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: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Date: 2003-09-12 03:29:16
Message-ID: 6162.1063337356@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:
> Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the
> port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases.  I am a little
> concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will
> patching for a while.

Probably so --- but we'd only be breaking new platforms that people are
starting to use, not old ones that might not be getting tested
regularly.

Understand that I'm not dead set against applying this patch for 7.4.
(On a code-cleanliness point of view I favor it.)  What I want is some
open discussion about the risks and benefits before we decide.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 03:33:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 03:19:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 03:33:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-09-12 03:19:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

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