Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I see now it was already consulted here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1368448758.23422.12.ca...@t520.redhat.com
> I think we should go ahead and commit this patch, or some variant of
> it. Having a buildfarm machine would be good... but I don't think
> that should be a prerequisite for this sort of support. We certainly
> have spinlock support for other platforms for which we don't have
> buildfarm machines.
We got no response to the question of whether it couldn't be merged with
the existing ARM32 code block. I'd prefer not to have essentially
duplicate sections in s_lock.h if it's not necessary.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
