Re: Latches and barriers
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Latches and barriers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYVcdCsPKW3hoE8bpeJk8+Gx2vFHuRQCdWLYqj7nCQmPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Latches and barriers (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Latches and barriers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2015-01-12 11:03:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> > While it might not be required for existing latch uses (I'm *not* sure >> > that's true) > > I think at least syncrep.c might not be correct. In SyncRepWakeQueue() > it sets PGPROC->syncRepState without the necessary barriers (via locks), > although it does use them in SyncRepWaitForLSN(). > > It is, perhaps surprisingly to many, not sufficient to take a spinlock, > change the flag, release it and then set the latch - the release alone > doesn't guarantee a sufficient barrier unless looking at the flag is > also protected by the spinlock. I thought we decided that a spinlock acquire or release should be a full barrier. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: