| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, John Morris <john(dot)morris(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomic ops for unlogged LSN |
| Date: | 2023-11-10 20:54:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20231110205414.GC1315705@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:27:33PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I wonder if it's worth providing a set of "locked read" functions. Those
> could just do a compare/exchange with 0 in the generic implementation. For
> patches like this one where the overhead really shouldn't matter, I'd
> encourage folks to use those to make it easy to reason about correctness.
I moved this proposal to a new thread [0].
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20231110205128.GB1315705%40nathanxps13
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2023-11-10 21:42:26 | Re: pgsql: Don't trust unvalidated xl_tot_len. |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-11-10 20:51:28 | locked reads for atomics |