On 2013-11-12 13:21:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The only real problem with that would be that we'd need to remove the
> > spinnlock fallback for barriers, but that seems to be pretty much
> > disliked.
>
> I think this is worth considering.
Ok, cool. The prototype patch I have for that is pr
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Instead of de-supporting platforms that don't have CAS support or
> providing parallel implementations we could relatively easily build a
> spinlock based fallback using the already existing requirement for
> tas().
> Something like an array
Hi,
Instead of de-supporting platforms that don't have CAS support or
providing parallel implementations we could relatively easily build a
spinlock based fallback using the already existing requirement for
tas().
Something like an array of 16 spinlocks, indexed by a more advanced
version of ((cha
