| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Atomic Operations |
| Date: | 2007-01-10 18:38:35 |
| Message-ID: | 45A532AB.6020505@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
what are the assumptions PostgreSQL normally does about atomic
operations? I see sig_atomic_t is used in signal handlers. Additionally,
there is a match for a cmpxchg instruction in some solaris ports code,
but that's about what I found in the source.
Am I safe assuming that pointer assignments are atomic (on all platforms
PostgreSQL compiles on, that is)? (This is a 'practical advice' from the
GNU Libc Manual) How about other integers smaller or equal in size to
sizeof(sig_atomic_t)?
I'm asking to make sure I rely on the same guarantees in my code.
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-01-10 18:38:42 | Re: [PATCHES] fix build on Solaris 10/x86_64 in 64bit mode with Sun |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-10 18:24:14 | Re: [PATCHES] fix build on Solaris 10/x86_64 in 64bit mode with Sun Studio 11 |