| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latches and barriers |
| Date: | 2015-01-12 17:55:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20150112175537.GE2092@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-12 12:49:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2015-01-12 11:03:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah, now that we have barrier code we think works, we should definitely
> >> put some in there. The only reason it's like that is we didn't have
> >> any real barrier support at the time.
>
> > Master only though? If we decide we need it earlier, we can backport
> > that commit lateron...
>
> We've not been back-patching barrier fixes have we?
Not fully at least. And I'm not sure that's good, because at least
bgworker.c has relied on working barriers for a while and 9.4 introduced
a couple more uses.
I guess we should fix up the backbranch versions in a while.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-12 17:57:25 | Re: s_lock.h default definitions are rather confused |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-12 17:52:49 | Re: Latches and barriers |