[PATCH] Implements SPIN_LOCK on ARM
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t43422psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v1 (message #1), July 28, 2026 at 02:22 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t43422_1 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t43422_1 && git checkout t43422_1Patchset v1 (message #1) is on t43422_1
David CARLIER <devnexen@gmail.com> writes:
Hi here a little update proposal for ARM architecture.
This sort of thing is not a "little proposal" where you can just
send in an unsupported patch and expect it to be accepted.
You need to provide some evidence that (a) it actually does anything
useful and (b) it isn't a net loss on some ARM architectures.
For comparison's sake, see
/messages/by-id/CAB10pyamDkTFWU_BVGeEVmkc8=EhgCjr6QBk02SCdJtKpHkdFw@mail.gmail.com
where we still haven't pulled the trigger despite a great deal
more than zero testing.
FWIW, some casual googling suggests that ARM "yield" is not
all that much like x86 "pause": it supposedly encourages
the system to swap control away from the thread altogether,
exactly what we *don't* want in a spinloop. So I'm a little
doubtful whether there's a case to be made for this at all.
But for sure, you haven't tried to make a case.
regards, tom lane