| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded |
| Date: | 2026-04-08 00:50:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2eg4msihe4kbmwmxyoamgeeg5xj4fr2tlfj2omss3d3to2kveg@lbhhfggrdrw4 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-04-08 02:30:44 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 6:55 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree to change in WaitLSNWakeup(), memory barrier looks necessary there.
> Regarding GetCurrentLSNForWaitType(), I don't think barrier is needed
> here, nor think it makes things clearer. I think it would be enough
> to comment that LWLock operations in addLSNWaiter()/deleteLSNWaiter()
> provide necessary barriers.
That's sufficient for the first iteration, but what guarantees it once you do
WaitLatch()? That's likely going to imply a barrier somewhere in the kernel,
but I don't think there's any actual guarantee.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-04-08 01:03:33 | Re: Add errdetail() with PID and UID about source of termination signal |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2026-04-08 00:30:46 | Re: Automatically sizing the IO worker pool |