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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 14:36:36
Message-ID: 201011191536.36458.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday 19 November 2010 15:29:10 Andres Freund wrote:
> Besides, we can just jump into the kernel and back in that case (which the
> TAS implementation already does), that does more than just a fence...
Or if you don't believe that is enough initialize a lock on the stack, lock
and forget it...

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-19 14:38:37 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2010-11-19 14:35:44 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)