| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Freezing without write I/O |
| Date: | 2013-10-01 11:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+CSw_vYdvZEURnwrf02kVyxfKWiOSsK6H7zA-jiH+yLRmwdPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed. The "wait free LW_SHARED" thing[1] I posted recently had a simple
>
> #define pg_atomic_read(atomic) (*(volatile uint32 *)&(atomic))
>
> That should be sufficient and easily greppable, right?
Looks good enough for me. I would consider using a naming scheme that
accounts for possible future uint64 atomics.
Regards,
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-01 11:35:43 | Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2013-10-01 11:31:11 | Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |