Marcus Meissner wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:08:56AM +0100, Reinhard Max wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 13:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currentl
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 13:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use
> > may behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems.
>
> What's his evidence for that claim?
Let's ask himself.
> The code we have
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:08:56AM +0100, Reinhard Max wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 13:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use
> > > may behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems.
> >
>
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use may
> behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems. Attached is the proposed
> patch, suggested for inclusion in 7.4. Comments?
I looked into this some more. The current CVS tip is
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use may
> behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems.
What's his evidence for that claim? The code we have is based directly
on the recommendations in the PPC manuals, and has been test
The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use may
behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems. Attached is the proposed
patch, suggested for inclusion in 7.4. Comments?
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- src/include/storage/s_lock.h
+++ src/include/storage/s_lock.