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
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 |