| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com |
| Cc: | Arrigo Triulzi <arrigo(at)albourne(dot)com>, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Alpha spinlock |
| Date: | 2000-10-02 06:26:40 |
| Message-ID: | 965.970468000@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not that I recall. We did get some advice from some Alpha gurus at DEC
>> who seemed to think the existing TAS code is OK. What was it that you
>> felt needed to be improved?
> The current code uses semaphores,
Oh, I'm sorry, I was thinking about the Linux-Alpha code, for which
there has been an inline-assembly version of tas() for a long time;
and it was that code that we asked the DEC people about. I had
forgotten that the OSF port uses a different semaphore method.
Is there a reason we couldn't use the Linux-Alpha code on OSF too?
I'd just as soon minimize the difference between the two ports ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karel Zak | 2000-10-02 07:21:18 | www.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-02 06:22:49 | Re: Strange error message |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-02 06:36:27 | Re: Q: spinlock on Alpha? (PG7.0.2) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-02 06:22:49 | Re: Strange error message |