Re: Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:46:56 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, 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 didn't think we had done that yet ... had we? called for port reports,
> that is ... ?
>
>> 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?
>
> I just went through the whole patch myself, and as much as I like the
> overall simplification, I tend to agree with Tom here on questioning the
> requirement to do suck a massive change so late in the end cycle ... is
> there no smaller bandaid that can be applied to handle the Opteron/Itanium
> issue for v7.4, with the "cleanup patch" being applied right away after
> v7.4?
>
Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If y'all
care).

LER

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749