| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Marek Szuba <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V |
| Date: | 2021-08-13 16:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | 73691.1628870608@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-08-13 11:09:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Marek Szuba <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org> writes:
>>> Tested against PostgreSQL 13.3 on a physical rv64gc system (BeagleV
>>> Starlight beta board) - builds and installs fine, all tests pass.
> Should we backpatch this? It's not like we're going to break existing
> risc-v systems by enabling spinlock support...
Yeah, why not? If you were building with --disable-spinlocks before,
this shouldn't change anything for you.
(I haven't actually looked at the patch, mind you, but in principle
it shouldn't break anything that worked before.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-08-13 16:16:07 | Re: Multiple Postgres process are running in background |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-08-13 15:59:40 | Re: pgsql: pgstat: Bring up pgstat in BaseInit() to fix uninitialized use o |