From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Date: | 2005-09-14 02:54:59 |
Message-ID: | 28489.1126666499@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> I suspect distributors would go for the multi-cpu setup (especially if
> a uniprocessor build is *broken* for multiprocessor) and then in a
> lot of cases you end up not actually getting any benefit. I'm afraid
> you'd also end up having to tell alot of people who complain to
> recompile, who will then complain back to their distributors, etc.
Yeah. Being in charge of Red Hat's packaging of PG, I feel that pain as
keenly as anybody ... and I *know* RH will not be interested in shipping
two different packages. If we go this way, the RH distributions will
use the --optimize-multi switch, because that's where the money is.
The bottom line here is that we will have to make some compromises:
if we want one-size-fits-all code, it will not be optimal for every
single architecture. If we don't do one-size-fits-all, then we will
pay for it in various other ways.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Min Xu (Hsu) | 2005-09-14 02:55:38 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-14 02:42:59 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |