| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Date: | 2015-06-30 09:35:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20150630093556.GQ30708@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-29 22:58:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So personally, I would be inclined to put back the volatile qualifier,
> independently of any fooling around with _Asm_double_magic_xyzzy
> calls.
I'm not sure. I think the reliance on an explicit memory barrier is a
lot more robust and easy to understand than some barely documented odd
behaviour around volatile. On the other hand the old way worked for a
long while.
I'm inclined to just do both on platforms as odd as IA6. But it'd like
to let anole run with the current set a bit longer - if it doesn't work
we have more problems than just S_UNLOCK(). It seems EDB has increased
the run rate for now, so it shouldn't take too long:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=anole&br=HEAD
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-30 09:38:26 | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2015-06-30 08:49:31 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |