| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 16:16:24 |
| Message-ID: | 412B69D8.20206@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Associating such a thing with spinlocks seems certain to be a dead loss,
> as the amount of time we normally hold a spinlock is much less than the
> time to make one kernel call, let alone two.
Yeah, I was thinking about this. ISTM the only way that Sun would bother
to provide an API like this is if it had significantly less overhead
than a standard system call. Anyway, I'll take a closer look.
> On the count-the-number-of-CPUs patch, what sort of coverage are you
> expecting to get?
I haven't yet seen a platform that doesn't provide some means to get the
# of CPUs, but I suppose there might be one...
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 16:42:22 | Re: debuging postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 16:08:40 | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |