Jonathan Stone wrote:
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> [Tom I Helbekkmo <tih@Hamartun.Priv.NO> wrote]
> 
> >>Most
> >>other NetBSD platforms will be very, very easy to get running for
> >>someone who is able to implement a simple test-and-set spin lock for
> >>the hardware in question in assembly.
> 
> >But what about processors that cant do test-and-set?  Should we
> >introduce a new MD syscall or fastpath trap for them, or what?
> 
> Sigh. It'd be nice if PostGres was designed to better support broken
> CPUs, but one cant be too disappointed that they dont.

PostGreSQL does support machines without a test-and-set instruction, but
it requires some strange software locking scheme.  It's been a while since
I looked at the code, but I believe that it does work.  It's just slower
than having an atomic instruction in hardware.

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - MD6                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.