From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |
Date: | 2017-08-16 19:02:45 |
Message-ID: | 20170816190245.uqv6kswf3uud24gp@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-16 14:09:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not sure that that's good enough, and I'm damn sure that it
> >> shouldn't be undocumented.
>
> > 8 byte alignment would be good enough, so BUFFERALIGN ought to be
> > sufficient. But it'd be nicer to have a separate more descriptive knob.
>
> What I meant by possibly not good enough is that pg_atomic_uint64 used
> in other places isn't going to be very safe.
Well, it's not used otherwise in core so far, leaving test code
aside. It's correctly aligned if part of a aligned struct - the atomics
code itself can't really do anything about aligning that struct itself
isn't aligned.
> We might be effectively all right as long as we have a coding rule that
> pg_atomic_uint64 can only be placed in memory handed out by ShmemAlloc
> or shm_toc_allocate, which both have bigger-than-MAXALIGN alignment
> practices. But this needs to be documented.
Well, one could argue the alignment checks in every function are that
:). But yea, we probably should mention it more than that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-16 19:13:46 | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-16 19:02:40 | Re: Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths |