Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> In addition to the point Tom has made, I think it's also not correct that hppa
> doesn't impose a burden: hppa is the only of our architectures that doesn't
> actually support atomic operations, requiring us to have infrastructure to
> backfill atomics using spinlocks. This does preclude some uses of atomics,
> e.g. in signal handlers - I think Thomas wanted to do so for some concurrency
> primitive.
Hmm, are you saying there's more of port/atomics/ that could be
removed? What exactly? Do we really want to assume that all
future architectures will have atomic operations?
regards, tom lane
