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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date: 2010-11-19 14:16:24
Message-ID: AANLkTi=+dYw6Q_OCckT0jb612H8mfAqd+kGQ-QuVB+id@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> So the complicated case seems to be !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) which uses
> spinlocks for that purpose - no idea where that is true these days.

Me neither, which is exactly the problem. Under Tom's proposal, any
architecture we don't explicitly provide for, breaks.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-19 14:27:06 Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-19 14:14:58 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)