Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-11-14 20:45:00
Message-ID: 4CE04A4C.3090003@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13.11.2010 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Come to think of it, I'm not really sure I understand what protects
>> SetLatch() against memory ordering hazards. Is that actually safe?
>
> Hmm ... that's a good question. It certainly *looks* like it could
> malfunction on machines with weak memory ordering.

Can you elaborate?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-11-14 20:49:24 pg_stat_bgwriter broken?
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2010-11-14 20:06:19 Re: wCTE behaviour