Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)
Date: 2020-06-09 21:04:42
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZWTOcr8wZo6L-sbHwArTUUsYKzjzyyh=fSGOb3vkFF+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:37 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hm. Looking at this again, perhaps the better fix would be to simply not
> look at the concrete values of the barrier inside the signal handler?
> E.g. we could have a new PROCSIG_GLOBAL_BARRIER, which just triggers
> ProcSignalBarrierPending to be set. And then have
> ProcessProcSignalBarrier do the check that's currently in
> CheckProcSignalBarrier()?

That seems like a good idea.

Also, I wonder if someone would be willing to set up a BF animal for this.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-06-09 21:06:25 Re: Why is pq_begintypsend so slow?
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2020-06-09 20:42:45 Re: Speedup usages of pg_*toa() functions