On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Of course it could be. I don't think it should be. Aarch64 is a completely new architecture with faint resemblance to 32bit arm. I went back and read the previous thread concerning the problems with builtin gcc atomics with certain tool/hardware combinations. Would it be okay to add a default implementation based on gcc builtins to be used if no arch-specific definitions exist? If so, I could work up a patch for review. --Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
