On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-03-30 07:13:16 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> >> > My gut feeling is that we should do both 1) and 2). >> > >> > Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte? >> > Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works". I.e. replace the >> > #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char. >> > >> >> I set that, but after that it hangs, even Initdb hangs.. > > Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work. I'll try to write a > patch for approach 1).
Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation? That's has a somewhat uncomfortable sound to it. -- 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
