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. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
