| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:58:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20030911234817.X57860@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, but to throw an error if spinlocks aren't found, we need this
> patch. We would have to test for Opteron in all the platforms that test
> for specific CPU's but don't test for opteron, and might support
> opterion/itanium, but even then, we don't have any way of getting a
> report of a failure.
'K, but apparently right now we are broken on Opteron/Itanium without this
patch ... so, to fix, we either:
a. add appropriate tests to the individual port files based on individual
failure reports (albeit not clean, definitely safer), or:
b. we do massive, sweeping changes to the whole HAVE_TEST_AND_SET
detection code (definitely cleaner, but has potential of breaking more
then it fixes) :(
personally, as late in the cycle as we are, I think that a. is the wiser
move for v7.4, with b. being something that should happen as soon as
possible once we've branched and start working on v7.5 ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 03:04:09 | Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-09-12 02:57:58 | Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-09-12 03:00:22 | Re: Regression test for stats collector |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-09-12 02:57:58 | Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines |