Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> ... I don't feel super-strongly about it, but OTOH I see little
> reason to keep the Univel spinlock implementation if we're removing
> the Univel port.
No, I have no objection to that. I was just questioning the wisdom of
removing CPU-specific s_lock sections on the grounds that we haven't
heard from any users of that CPU lately. Doesn't mean they are not
out there.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
