Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
Date: 2005-10-11 17:55:43
Message-ID: 1129053343.8300.497.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> > you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> > no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> > machine.
>
> A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile
> "sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for
> PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some pretty convincing
> performance numbers before people start the packaging effort.

I completely agree, just note that we already have some cases where
convincing performance numbers exist.

Tom is suggesting having different behaviour for x86 and x86_64. The x86
will still run on x86_64 architecture would it not? So we'll have two
binaries for each OS, yes?

In general, where we do find a clear difference, we should at very least
identify/record which variant the binary is most suitable for. At best
we could produce different executables, but I understand the packaging
effort required to do that.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2005-10-11 18:09:32 Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
Previous Message David Fetter 2005-10-11 17:48:13 Re: PG 8.1beta3 out soon