| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
| Date: | 2004-08-24 17:20:34 |
| Message-ID: | 5330.1093368034@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the count-the-number-of-CPUs patch, what sort of coverage are you
>> expecting to get?
> I haven't yet seen a platform that doesn't provide some means to get the
> # of CPUs, but I suppose there might be one...
It might be worth exposing the CPU count as a GUC variable. This would
* make it easy to check on the results of the counting patch;
* make it easy to override the patch, if it's wrong on some platform;
* make it easy to experiment to see whether the spinlock behavioral
change actually matters ;-)
But this may be overkill.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2004-08-24 17:48:07 | Effective Cache Size |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 16:42:22 | Re: debuging postgres |