| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 22:59:01 |
| Message-ID: | 17975.1290207541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But what about timings vs. random other stuff? Like in this case
> there's a problem if the signal arrives before the memory update to
> latch->is_set becomes visible. I don't know what we need to do to
> guarantee that.
I don't believe there's an issue there. A context swap into the kernel
is certainly going to include msync. If you're afraid otherwise, you
could put an msync before the kill() call, but I think it's a waste of
effort.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-19 23:08:07 | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-19 22:56:12 | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |