Tom Lane [2011-12-19 10:25 -0500]: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On 19.12.2011 16:31, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Martin Pitt<mp...@debian.org> wrote: > >>> I agree. How about a patch like this? It uses builtin atomics if > >>> available, and falls back to the custom implementations if not. > > >> -1. Absent some evidence that gcc's implementations are superior to > >> ours, I think we should not change stuff that works now. That's > >> likely to lead to subtle bugs that are hard to find and perhaps > >> dependent on the exact compiler version used. > > > Ok, we're in disagreement on that then. I don't feel very strongly about > > it, let's see what others think. > > I agree with Robert. There is no evidence whatsoever that this would > be an improvement, and unless somebody cares to provide such evidence, > we shouldn't risk changing code that's so full of portability hazards.
OK, with you and Robert preferring this as a fallback instead of a preferred way, and with Heikki's "I don't care much", I'll rework the patch. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
