| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marko Kreen" <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Date: | 2005-09-14 07:18:14 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4CC2BC0@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 13 September 2005 23:03
> To: Marko Kreen
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and
> proposed patches
>
> I'm starting to think that we might have to succumb to having
> a compile
> option "optimize for multiprocessor" or "optimize for single
> processor".
> It's pretty hard to see how we'd alter a data structure decision like
> this on the fly.
That would be a major pita for packagers of binary distributions.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-09-14 07:30:05 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-09-14 07:15:54 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |