Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> > when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> > it seems like a good time to get it working.
>
> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

I haven't collected any known reports yet. That happens later, I
thought, nearer to RC1.

> But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
> not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta. Couldn't we do
> something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
> on breaking everything else?

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.

Yea, I should have thought of this before beta1, but now that I see the
bug reports, seems we have to go this way.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073