On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> So the complicated case seems to be !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) which uses >>> spinlocks for that purpose - no idea where that is true these days. >> >> Me neither, which is exactly the problem. Under Tom's proposal, any >> architecture we don't explicitly provide for, breaks. > > Just a small point of clarification - you need to have both that > unknown archtecture, and that architecture has to have postgres > process running simultaneously on difference CPUs with different > caches that are incoherent to have those problems.
Sure you do. But so what? Are you going to compile PostgreSQL and implement TAS as a simple store and read-fence as a simple load? How likely is that to work out well? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
