| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Date: | 2003-09-12 13:49:31 |
| Message-ID: | 10394.1063374571@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> If we force people to give a --without-spinlocks config option to build
>> that way, then `pg_config --configure' will reveal the dirty deed ...
> That's not quite what I meant :) Right now, if I understood what Bruce
> was saying, if someone doesn't have spinlocks, it switches to using SysV
> Messenging, correct? In the current system, is there anything that one
> can do on a running, live system, to detect that you aren't using
> spinlocks?
It'll be fairly obvious if you use "ipcs -s" and count up the number of
semaphores created by the postmaster. Ordinarily we will grab
approximately max_connections semas, but without spinlocks it will
be somewhere north of max_connections + 2 * shared_buffers ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-09-12 13:51:38 | Re: Another small bug (pg_autovacuum) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 13:47:31 | Re: massive quotes? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 13:53:10 | __cpu__ defines |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 13:36:54 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |