Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work
Date: 2016-10-05 18:05:10
Message-ID: 20161005180510.qopm4lbm7d7zzllt@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-10-05 14:01:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think what is happening is that there are circular assumptions that end
> up trying to implement a spinlock in terms of a spinlock, or otherwise
> somehow recursively use the process's semaphore. It's a bit hard to tell
> though because the atomics code is such an underdocumented rat's nest of
> #ifdefs.

I don't think that should be the case, but I'll look into it. How long
did it take for you to reproduce the issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-10-05 18:09:22 Re: Move allocation size overflow handling to MemoryContextAllocExtended()?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-10-05 18:01:05 Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work