Re: SSI patch version 12

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,<pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 12
Date: 2011-01-18 04:48:43
Message-ID: 4D34C74B0200002500039706@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Dan Ports wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:20:20PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> OK. I may need to bounce some questions off the list to resolve
>> some of them. The biggest, in my mind, is whether
>> MySerializableXact needs to be declared volatile. I don't have my
>> head around the issues on that as well as I might. Any thoughts on
>> it?
>
> I'd been meaning to ask about that too. I couldn't think of any
> reason it would need to be volatile. Why do you think it might need
> to be?

I honestly can't remember why I initially put that there -- possibly
because I had a notion that some modifications to the structure might
not need to be so closely synchronized with other processes as to
need have modifications covered by a LW lock, but not wanting them to
linger forever. It may be completely bogus.

The problem is that I don't have a very clear sense of what it really
does, which is not helped much by having done a few years of Java
programming, where the same keyword seems to have a vaguely-similar-
but-not-really-the-same meaning.

-Kevin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Charlie Savage 2011-01-18 04:59:19 MingW + GCC 4.5.2 + Relocate libpq.dll = SegFault
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-01-18 04:18:55 Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW]