From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
Date: | 2016-04-12 03:59:21 |
Message-ID: | 3181.1460433561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> The issue is likely that either Alexander or I somehow made
>>> MarkLocalBufferDirty() use pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(), instead of the
>>> proper pg_atomic_read_u32()/pg_atomic_write_u32().
> Ok, so the theory above fits.
Yah, especially in view of localbuf.c:297 ;-)
> Will fix (both initialization and use of pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32), and
> expand the documentation on why only atomic read/write are supposed to
> be used.
FWIW, I'd vote against adding a SpinLockInit there. What it would mostly
do is prevent noticing future mistakes of the same ilk. It would be
better no doubt if we didn't have to rely on a nearly-dead platform
to detect this; but having such detection of a performance bug is better
than having no detection.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-12 04:03:35 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-12 03:47:04 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-12 04:03:35 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-12 03:47:04 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |