| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Date: | 2003-09-12 13:08:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20030912100638.K82880@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> >> Right, though I am not sure people will know _slow_ configuration vs.
> >> PostgreSQL is slow.
>
> > No, but definitely something for those discussion performance to add
> > to their checklist :)
>
> > BTW, post-compile, running system ... how do you check this? Or can you?
>
> If we force people to give a --without-spinlocks config option to build
> that way, then `pg_config --configure' will reveal the dirty deed ...
That's not quite what I meant :) Right now, if I understood what Bruce
was saying, if someone doesn't have spinlocks, it switches to using SysV
Messenging, correct? In the current system, is there anything that one
can do on a running, live system, to detect that you aren't using
spinlocks?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-09-12 13:10:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-09-12 12:57:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 13:36:54 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-09-12 06:58:15 | Re: Regression test for stats collector |