| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Salter <msalter(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock support for aarch64 |
| Date: | 2013-05-13 15:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | 51910636.30007@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.05.2013 17:26, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I'm starting to wonder why we don't always use gcc atomics if they are
> available and assembly implementation is not (any maybe, even if it
> is).
That was discussed a while ago, but there were a lot of claims that
__sync_lock_test_and_set is broken on many various platforms:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/5642(dot)1324482916(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us#5642(dot)1324482916@sss.pgh.pa.us.
The situation might've improved since, but I guess we should proceed
cautiously.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-05-13 15:31:03 | Re: MemoryContextAllocHuge(): selectively bypassing MaxAllocSize |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-13 15:14:05 | Re: lock support for aarch64 |