On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Despite my concerns about keeping the list of supported atomics short, >> and I do have concerns in that area, I'm not really sure that we have >> much choice but to go in that direction. We can't accept a >5x >> performance hit in the name of portability, and that's literally what >> we're talking about in some cases. I definitely want to think >> carefully about how we proceed in this area but doing nothing doesn't >> seem like an option. > > To be clear, I'm not advocating doing nothing (and I don't think anyone > else is). It's obvious based on Andres' results that we want to use > atomics on platforms where they're well-supported. The argument is > around what we're going to do for other platforms.
OK, but that still seems like the issue on the other thread, not what's being discussed here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
