Re: [HACKERS] Problem in S_LOCK?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Keith Parks <emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Problem in S_LOCK?
Date: 1999-05-25 00:30:42
Message-ID: 1695.927592242@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Keith Parks <emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> Platform SPARC Linux 2.0.36, latest CVS.

SPARC Linux? Didn't know there was such a thing. You should look at
the machine-dependent assembly coding in s_lock.h and s_lock.c. Perhaps
the #ifdefs are messed up such that the wrong bit of code is being
selected for your platform. (We do have spinlock code for SPARC, IIRC,
but I wonder whether it gets selected if the platform name is linux ...)

If the failure just started appearing recently then this probably ain't
the answer :-(

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-05-25 01:47:19 Re: [HACKERS] Article for Daemon News
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-05-25 00:26:53 Re: [HACKERS] Updated 6.5 HISTORY