Re: [HACKERS] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, the silent fallback to semaphores isn't such a hot idea in
> hindsight. But the part of the patch that requires a configure option
> to use that code path could be applied without touching anything else.

Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the
port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases. I am a little
concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will
patching for a while.

--
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