From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
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 18:09:08 |
Message-ID: | 32460.1502906948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-08-16 13:40:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was wondering why the shm_toc code was using BUFFERALIGN and not
>> MAXALIGN, and I now suspect that the answer is "it's an entirely
>> undocumented kluge to make the atomics code not crash on 32-bit
>> machines, so long as nobody puts a pg_atomic_uint64 anywhere except in
>> a shm_toc".
> I don't think there were any atomics in affected code until earlier
> today... And given it didn't work for shm_toc anyway, I'm not quite
> following.
Right, Robert pointed out that it's pre-existing code. My point should
be read as "it's just blind luck that shm_toc is using bigger than
MAXALIGN alignment, or this would never work on 32-bit machines".
>> 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.
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-16 18:16:43 | Re: Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-08-16 18:02:20 | Re: 10 beta docs: different replication solutions |