| From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Small SSI issues |
| Date: | 2011-06-11 20:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20110611200324.GR26076@csail.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I'm not concerned about references covered by
> SerializableXactHashLock. I am more concerned about some of the
> tests for whether the (MySerializableXact == InvalidSerializableXact)
> checks and any other tests not covered by that lock are OK without it
> (and OK with it). Since my knowledge of weak memory ordering
> behavior is, well, weak I didn't want to try to make that call.
Oh, those checks are definitely not an issue -- MySerializableXact
itself (the pointer, not the thing it's pointing to) is in
backend-local memory, so it won't change under us.
The volatile qualifier (as written) doesn't help with that anyway, it
attaches to the data being pointed to, not the pointer itself.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-06-11 20:23:24 | Re: procpid? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2011-06-11 19:21:46 | Re: pgbench--new transaction type |