Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1129053343.8300.497.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures
Re: Spinlocks and CPU Architectures |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > This seems pretty unworkable from a packaging standpoint. Even if > > you teach autoconf how to tell which model it's running on, there's > > no guarantee that the resulting executables will be used on that same > > machine. > > A number of packages in the video area (and perhaps others) do compile > "sub-architecture" specific variants. This could be done for > PostgreSQL, but you'd probably need to show some pretty convincing > performance numbers before people start the packaging effort. I completely agree, just note that we already have some cases where convincing performance numbers exist. Tom is suggesting having different behaviour for x86 and x86_64. The x86 will still run on x86_64 architecture would it not? So we'll have two binaries for each OS, yes? In general, where we do find a clear difference, we should at very least identify/record which variant the binary is most suitable for. At best we could produce different executables, but I understand the packaging effort required to do that. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: