Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

Yes, you are. On UnixWare, you need to add -Kthread, which CHANGES a LOT
of primitives to go through threads wrappers and scheduling.

See the doc on the http://UW7DOC.SCO.COM or http://www.lerctr.org:457/
web pages.

Also, some functions are NOT available without the -Kthread or -Kpthread
directives.

LER

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 3/16/01, 11:10:34 AM, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> wrote
regarding Re: Re[4]: [HACKERS] Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC :

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> > Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> > >> definitely need before considering this is to replace the existing
> > >> spinlock mechanism with something more efficient.
> >
> > > What sort of problems are you seeing with the spinlock code?
> >
> > It's great as long as you never block, but it sucks for making things
> > wait, because the wait interval will be some multiple of 10 msec rather
> > than just the time till the lock comes free.
> >
> > We've speculated about using Posix semaphores instead, on platforms
> > where those are available. I think Bruce was concerned about the
> > possible overhead of pulling in a whole thread-support library just to
> > get semaphores, however.

> But, with shared libraries, are you really pulling in a "whole
> thread-support library"? My understanding of shared libraries (altho it
> may be totally off) was that instead of pulling in a whole library, you
> pulled in the bits that you needed, pretty much as you needed them ...

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)