| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Date: | 2013-03-22 16:49:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HN9mMEudBVtGUXi9BYj=1bRwMt5cnu+3yEgD2io_f8nRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The "barrier" essentially
> divides up the code into chunks and requires that those chunks be
> optimized independently by the compiler without knowledge of what
> earlier or later chunks are doing
While all this sounds sensible I would love to see a gcc programmer or
llvm programmer actually comment on what they think volatile does and
what they want to implement in the compiler.
I'm a bit worried that we're making assumptions like "things happen in
a specific order" that aren't really justified. In these days of
superscalar execution and multi-level caches things may be weirder
than we're imagining.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-03-22 17:35:08 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-22 16:19:12 | Default connection parameters for postgres_fdw and dblink |