Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
Date: 2005-10-11 16:45:58
Message-ID: 200510111845.59222.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if
> you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's
> no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same
> machine.

A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile
"sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for
PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some pretty convincing
performance numbers before people start the packaging effort.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2005-10-11 17:48:13 Re: PG 8.1beta3 out soon
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-11 15:36:43 Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures