| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "''pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org' '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |
| Date: | 2004-01-13 04:46:40 |
| Message-ID: | 7926.1073969200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
>> The correct solution to that seems to lie elsewhere, ie, not use
>> semaphores for spinlocks.
> Just working with what we've already got. There seems to be very usable code
> in src/backend/port/win32/sema.c, which gets invoked as Win32 does not have
> spin-locks, but unfortunately relies on ShmemInitStruct.
Win32 certainly has spinlocks; it does not run on any hardware for which
we don't have spinlock assembler. For that matter, doesn't it have
POSIX-compatible semaphores? I'm not sure there's any need for
src/backend/port/win32/sema.c at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-13 05:15:09 | Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-01-13 04:32:15 | Re: Postgres + Xapian (was Re: fulltext searching via a |