| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks |
| Date: | 2020-06-04 07:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20200604070328.GS89559@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:40:31AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah. It'd be fine to move that after the spinlock release. Although
> it's really just for informational purposes only, not for any data
> integrity purpose, reading it before the spinlock acquisition would
> theoretically allow it to appear to be (reportedly) behind
> flushedUpto, which would be silly.
Indeed. This could just be done after the spinlock section. Sorry
about that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-06-04 07:10:33 | Re: Read access for pg_monitor to pg_replication_origin_status view |
| Previous Message | Oleksandr Shulgin | 2020-06-04 06:22:15 | Re: libpq copy error handling busted |