| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Date: | 2003-09-12 04:17:22 |
| Message-ID: | 6640.1063340242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Right, though I am not sure people will know _slow_ configuration vs.
>> PostgreSQL is slow.
> No, but definitely something for those discussion performance to add
> to their checklist :)
> BTW, post-compile, running system ... how do you check this? Or can you?
If we force people to give a --without-spinlocks config option to build
that way, then `pg_config --configure' will reveal the dirty deed ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 04:18:53 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-12 04:14:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-12 04:18:53 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-12 04:14:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines |