X-Original-To: pgsql-patches-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCB99FA509 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 09:23:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27730-06 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 09:23:06 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [70.90.9.53]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F02A9FA372 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 09:23:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k45CMxC22692; Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200605051222.k45CMxC22692@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64 In-Reply-To: <445A5364.4090307@Sun.COM> To: Robert.Lor@Sun.COM Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:22:59 -0400 (EDT) CC: Tom Lane , Theo Schlossnagle , Josh.Berkus@Sun.COM, PostgreSQL-patches X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/53 X-Sequence-Number: 19599 Done, for Solaris and x86. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Lor wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > The new SPARC assembly file src/backend/port/tas/solaris_sparc.s uses / > instead of ! for comments, and as a result the compile fails with Sun > Studio 11. Please modify the first 3 lines to look like the following. > > > !======================================================================= > > ! solaris_sparc.s -- compare and swap for solaris_sparc > > !======================================================================= > > > > Thanks! > > -Robert > > > Bruce Momjian wrote On 04/29/06 17:16,: > > >Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > >>Theo Schlossnagle 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. > >> > >> > > > >Agreed. Should the new Solaris ASM code be modified? > > > > > > > -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +