Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>, Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2005-09-14T02:54:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > I suspect distributors would go for the multi-cpu setup (especially if > a uniprocessor build is *broken* for multiprocessor) and then in a > lot of cases you end up not actually getting any benefit. I'm afraid > you'd also end up having to tell alot of people who complain to > recompile, who will then complain back to their distributors, etc. Yeah. Being in charge of Red Hat's packaging of PG, I feel that pain as keenly as anybody ... and I *know* RH will not be interested in shipping two different packages. If we go this way, the RH distributions will use the --optimize-multi switch, because that's where the money is. The bottom line here is that we will have to make some compromises: if we want one-size-fits-all code, it will not be optimal for every single architecture. If we don't do one-size-fits-all, then we will pay for it in various other ways. regards, tom lane