Re: Correction to comment regarding atomicity of an operation

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: "'Gurjeet Singh'" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'PGSQL Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Correction to comment regarding atomicity of an operation
Date: 2012-09-12 03:19:57
Message-ID: 002901cd9095$7cc42a90$764c7fb0$@kapila@huawei.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:33 AM Gurjeet Singh wrote:

> This comment in UpdateFullPageWrites() seems to be inaccurate:

> * It's safe to check the shared full_page_writes without the lock,
> * because we assume that there is no concurrently running process
which
> * can update it.

> That assumption does not hold on any sane SMP system.

Do you able to see any case where it can be updated when being accessed
here.

With Regards,

Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2012-09-12 03:30:40 Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database)
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2012-09-12 00:52:45 Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes