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...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-24 16:42:22|
|Subject: Re: debuging postgres |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-24 16:08:40|
|Subject: Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |