Re: Correction to comment regarding atomicity of an operation

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Correction to comment regarding atomicity of an operation
Date: 2012-09-12 20:08:13
Message-ID: 20120912200813.GA10429@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:44:37AM -0400, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Thinking a bit more about the need for locks, I guess even the shared
> variables whose read/write ops are considered atomic need to be protected
> by locks so that the effects of NUMA architectures can be mitigated.

src/backend/storage/lmgr/README.barrier has nice coverage of such issues.

NUMA does not change the picture. CPU architecture specifications define
ordering constraints for instructions that touch memory. NUMA is a property
of specific system implementations that changes performance characteristics,
but not functional guarantees, of those instructions.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2012-09-12 20:24:31 Re: Correction to comment regarding atomicity of an operation
Previous Message Nathan Wagner 2012-09-12 19:45:26 Re: ossp-uuid Contrib Patch