Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzWqhmdi24Yx8u3_Cm1nk+uvF=_zbsp5bURzDsEDByMhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:22 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-12-27 13:54:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Finally getting around to playing with this one and it unfortunately
> doesn't apply anymore (0003).
>
> I think it's just a matter of adding those two rows though, right? That is,
> it's not an actual conflict it's just something else added in the same
> place?
What do you mean with "rows" here? I see a bunch of trivial conflicts
due to changes in atomics initialization but nothing else? And yes, I'd
not expect any meaningful conflicts.
Sorry, lack of caffeine. The conflict I saw was:
/* Initialize lockGroupMembers list. */
dlist_init(&procs[i].lockGroupMembers);
+
+ pg_atomic_init_u32(&procs[i].barrierFlags, 0);
+ pg_atomic_init_u64(&procs[i].barrierGen, PG_UINT64_MAX);
}
So yes, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: