| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Atomic Operations | 
| Date: | 2007-01-10 19:21:47 | 
| Message-ID: | 20070110192147.GB15378@alvh.no-ip.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi Markus,
> what are the assumptions PostgreSQL normally does about atomic 
> operations? I see sig_atomic_t is used in signal handlers. Additionally, 
> there is a match for a cmpxchg instruction in some solaris ports code, 
> but that's about what I found in the source.
> 
> Am I safe assuming that pointer assignments are atomic (on all platforms 
> PostgreSQL compiles on, that is)? (This is a 'practical advice' from the 
> GNU Libc Manual) How about other integers smaller or equal in size to 
> sizeof(sig_atomic_t)?
> 
> I'm asking to make sure I rely on the same guarantees in my code.
Currently we rely on TransactionId being atomic; see
GetNewTransactionId.  It's defined as uint32 somewhere, so I guess you
could rely on that.
-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-01-10 19:22:20 | Re: ECPG regression test failures on Solaris 10/x86_64 | 
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-01-10 18:38:42 | Re: [PATCHES] fix build on Solaris 10/x86_64 in 64bit mode with Sun |