Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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...


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-24 16:42:22
Subject: Re: debuging postgres
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-24 16:08:40
Subject: Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group