Re: Atomic ops for unlogged LSN

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, John Morris <john(dot)morris(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Atomic ops for unlogged LSN
Date: 2023-11-10 20:54:14
Message-ID: 20231110205414.GC1315705@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 03:27:33PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I wonder if it's worth providing a set of "locked read" functions. Those
> could just do a compare/exchange with 0 in the generic implementation. For
> patches like this one where the overhead really shouldn't matter, I'd
> encourage folks to use those to make it easy to reason about correctness.

I moved this proposal to a new thread [0].


Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Berg 2023-11-10 21:42:26 Re: pgsql: Don't trust unvalidated xl_tot_len.
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-11-10 20:51:28 locked reads for atomics