Re: Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead?

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead?
Date: 2000-09-02 19:21:50
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0009021621440.700-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Yank her ...

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> I was bemused to notice this afternoon that the backend does not build
> if you have not defined HAVE_TEST_AND_SET; furthermore, this has been
> true at least since 6.4. (slock() is compiled anyway, and it calls
> TAS(), which will be an undefined symbol.) From the lack of
> complaints we can deduce that no one has run Postgres on a
> non-TEST_AND_SET platform in quite a while.
>
> Kinda makes me wonder what other bit-rot has set in in the non-TAS
> code, and whether we ought not just rip it out rather than try to
> "maintain" exceedingly delicate code that's gone untested for years.
> bufmgr.c, in particular, has behavior that's nontrivially different
> when HAVE_TEST_AND_SET isn't defined --- who wants to promise that
> that still works?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql-bugs 2000-09-02 20:00:01 unique/references not honored when inheriting tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-09-02 19:11:58 Re: Really bad/weird stuff with views over tables in 7.0.2