| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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 04:07:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20030912010548.V57860@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:
> Well, the problem was that we defined HAS_TEST_AND_SET inside the ports.
> I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> fall back to semaphores. That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.
From what I understand, "not working properly" means slow, not broken, no?
Which means ppl could submit a problem report and it could be fixed for
v7.4.1 ... its not so much 'not working properly' as it is 'not optimal
performance' ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-09-12 04:09:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 04:06:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-09-12 04:09:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-12 04:06:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines |