Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900
Date
Msg-id 87eklx2j2j.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Chris <list@1006.org> writes:
> > I've compiled 8.0 beta 1 on a R5900 V3.1 (a playstation 2) running
> > Linux (PS2 Linux 1) for portability testing.
> > ...
> > I'm wondering: would it be hard to fix the assembly spinlock code
> > for the R5900?
> 
> According to the previous port report from Red Hat, the PS2 chip simply
> doesn't have any user-space TAS instruction, so you're pretty much stuck.
> If you can find something that works, let us know.

Out of curiosity. If it lacks a tas instruction, is there really any smp
implementation that runs on it? Why would postgres want spinlocks at all with
only one processor?


-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: AT TIME ZONE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server: Rearrange pg_subtrans handling