Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date: 2010-11-19 19:00:06
Message-ID: 4CE674D60200002500037C2E@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> What you typically need is a guarantee about the order in which
> writes become visible.

> In some cases you also need to guarantee the order of reads.

Doesn't that suggest different primitives?

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-11-19 19:03:27 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-19 18:51:36 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)