| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Another bug introduced by fastpath patch |
| Date: | 2013-11-28 15:35:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20131128153529.GV31748@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-11-28 10:31:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The only remaining risk is that, if pointer
> fetch/store isn't atomic, we might fetch a half-updated pointer; which
> will be non-null, but not something we can use to reach the list. Since
> we do purport to support such architectures, we'd better apply the patch.
> I'll change the comment a bit to mention this.
We do support such architectures? Don't we already assume we can store
xids atomically (c.f. GetOldestActiveTransactionId())? Do we support a
64bit arch, that has a atomic 4byte store, but not atomic 8byte stores?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-28 15:39:18 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-28 15:31:21 | Re: Another bug introduced by fastpath patch |