Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:28:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thought that comes to mind is that these decisions are probably
>> comparable to those made by gcc conditional on -march flags. Do we
>> get access to the -march setting by means of predefined symbol
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Tom is suggesting having different behaviour for x86 and x86_64. The
> x86 will still run on x86_64 architecture would it not? So we'll have
> two binaries for each OS, yes?
A quick glance around tells me that most free operating systems are
treating x86 and x86_64 as separat
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:28:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thought that comes to mind is that these decisions are probably
> comparable to those made by gcc conditional on -march flags. Do we
> get access to the -march setting by means of predefined symbols?
> If so we could compile different
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile
>> "sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for
>> PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some prett
postgresql.org; Tom Lane
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
>
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> > > you teach autoconf h
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> > you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> > no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> > m
Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> machine.
A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others)
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:12:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if you
> teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's no
> guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> machine. We would have to m
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The long history of spinlock issues has recently been attacked
> significantly by Tom, but I wanted to get a status on this issue before
> we release 8.1
I'd still like to do something more with that before we release, but
exactly what is TBD.
> The concl
>
> Do other people reach the same conclusions?
>
> Can we make a list of those architectures for which 8.1 is known to
> perform reasonably well, with reasonable SMP scalability? I suggest that
> we record this list somewhere in the release notes, but with a comment
> to say we run on other archit
The long history of spinlock issues has recently been attacked
significantly by Tom, but I wanted to get a status on this issue before
we release 8.1
My understanding of the problems of spinlocking has been greatly
enhanced by two recent articles:
Linux Journal, discussing linux SMP portability i
11 matches
Mail list logo
