Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)

From: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date: 2010-11-19 15:12:26
Message-ID: 4CE693DA.3020802@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/19/2010 03:58 PM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> Well, it's not quite enough just to call into the kernel to serialize
> on "some point of memory", because your point is to make sure that
> *this particular piece of memory* is coherent.

Well, that certainly doesn't apply to full fences, that are not specific
to a particular piece of memory. I'm thinking of 'mfence' on x86_64 or
'mf' on ia64.

Regards

Markus Wanner

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-11-19 15:22:31 Re: duplicate connection failure messages
Previous Message Andres Freund 2010-11-19 15:06:33 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)