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
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 |