Theo Schlossnagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd remind everyone that the spinlock stuff is entirely optional at
> build time.
Not really. The performance hit for not having hardware spinlocks is
so severe that it's not considered a reasonable fallback.
> I also think it immensely useful to replace all of the tas subsystem
> with cas so that one could reliabily lock these atomics with the process
> id of the locker.
I cannot, ever once in my years working on Postgres, remember having
wanted such a thing. I am strongly against mucking with the spinlock
code for mere aesthetics --- it's too fragile and hard to test,
especially on platforms you don't have ready access to.
In short, it ain't broken and we don't need to fix it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
