Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the count-the-number-of-CPUs patch, what sort of coverage are you
>> expecting to get?
> I haven't yet seen a platform that doesn't provide some means to get the
> # of CPUs, but I suppose there might be one...
It might be worth exposing the CPU count as a GUC variable. This would
* make it easy to check on the results of the counting patch;
* make it easy to override the patch, if it's wrong on some platform;
* make it easy to experiment to see whether the spinlock behavioral change actually matters ;-)
But this may be overkill.
regards, tom lane