Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock
Date: 2024-07-01 14:08:23
Message-ID: 2735446.1719842903@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> because the failed assertion is:
>> #ifndef PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_U64_SIMULATION
>>     AssertPointerAlignment(&currval, 8);
>> #endif

Perhaps this assertion is what is wrong? If the platform has no
native 8-byte alignment requirement, why do we think that atomics
need it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2024-07-01 14:11:35 Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2024-07-01 13:48:30 Re: [PATCH] Handle SK_SEARCHNULL and SK_SEARCHNOTNULL in HeapKeyTest