From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove last traces of HPPA support |
Date: | 2023-10-20 21:33:23 |
Message-ID: | 20231020213323.zyzfimfyh6yuejto@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-10-20 15:59:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > In addition to the point Tom has made, I think it's also not correct that hppa
> > doesn't impose a burden: hppa is the only of our architectures that doesn't
> > actually support atomic operations, requiring us to have infrastructure to
> > backfill atomics using spinlocks. This does preclude some uses of atomics,
> > e.g. in signal handlers - I think Thomas wanted to do so for some concurrency
> > primitive.
>
> Hmm, are you saying there's more of port/atomics/ that could be
> removed? What exactly?
I was thinking we could remove the whole fallback path for atomic operations,
but it's a bit less, because we likely don't want to mandate support for 64bit
atomics yet. That'd still allow removing more than half of
src/include/port/atomics/fallback.h and src/backend/port/atomics.c - and more
if we finally decided to require a spinlock implementation.
> Do we really want to assume that all future architectures will have atomic
> operations?
Yes. Outside of the tiny microcontrollers, which obviously won't run postgres,
I cannot see any future architecture not having support for atomic operations.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-20 21:46:59 | Re: Remove last traces of HPPA support |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-10-20 20:35:06 | Re: Fix output of zero privileges in psql |