| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-23 17:38:48 |
| Message-ID: | 12382.1272044328@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Um, you have been burned by exactly this on x86 also:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg01265.php
Yeah, we never did figure out exactly how come you were observing that
failure on Intel-ish hardware. I was under the impression that Intel
machines didn't have weak-memory-ordering behavior.
I wonder whether your compiler had rearranged the code in ProcArrayAdd
so that the increment happened before the array element store at the
machine-code level. I think it would be entitled to do that under
standard C semantics, since that ProcArrayStruct pointer isn't marked
volatile.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-23 17:45:10 | Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks) |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2010-04-23 17:16:09 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |