| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: atomic reads & writes (with no barriers) |
| Date: | 2015-12-04 16:08:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20151204160842.GA4934@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2015-12-03 16:10:51 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Is the c.h change above on anything resembling the right track for
> a patch for this? If not, what would such a patch look like?
I think a better path would be to add fallback support for 64bit atomics
- like we already have for 32bit. That should really only take a few
lines. Then you can use pg_atomic_read_u64/pg_atomic_write_u64 and all
the rest of the atomics api.
For that to be helpful we'd want a more efficient read/write
implementation for some platforms (falls back to compare/exchange right
now), but that's easy.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-04 16:09:11 | Random crud left behind by aborted TAP tests |
| Previous Message | Catalin Iacob | 2015-12-04 16:08:21 | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |