Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.

From: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tsahee(at)amazon(dot)com
Subject: Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date: 2020-12-01 10:09:59
Message-ID: CAJ3gD9dTQdKNSWBAi8xEg3UC5_zbhdzR5iP=P7zm97i-R-V7Hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 15:33, Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What I meant was outline-atomics support was added in GCC-9.4 and was made default in gcc-10.
> LSE support is present for quite some time.

FWIW, here is an earlier discussion on the same (also added the
proposal author here) :

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/099F69EE-51D3-4214-934A-1F28C0A1A7A7%40amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-12-01 10:13:01 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Anastasia Lubennikova 2020-12-01 10:05:54 Commitfest 2020-11 is closed