Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Marek Szuba <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V
Date: 2021-08-13 15:30:01
Message-ID: 20210813153001.xtuvpam2dtysrsd3@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-08-13 11:09:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marek Szuba <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org> writes:
> > Tested against PostgreSQL 13.3 on a physical rv64gc system (BeagleV
> > Starlight beta board) - builds and installs fine, all tests pass.

Seems like a good idea to me.

> Cool ... I had hoped to acquire one of those myself, but I didn't
> make the cut.

Should we backpatch this? It's not like we're going to break existing
risc-v systems by enabling spinlock support...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2021-08-13 15:34:56 Re: Multiple Postgres process are running in background
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-08-13 15:09:04 Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V