Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question
Date: 2004-01-12 14:42:15
Message-ID: 28336.1073918535@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> Are these comments still true? Specifically, is it necessary to call
> CreateLWLocks before InitShmemIndex? I think it used to be, but then the
> ShmemIndexLock got made into a separate spinlock in its own right.

I think the only dependency was that ShmemIndexLock was an LWLock.

> It doesn't appear to be true, and I'd like to rearrange this section of the
> code,

You have broken stuff before by rearranging the sequence of
operations... what exactly have you got in mind here?

> ... a possible solution to a Win32 shmem/semaphore bootstrap
> problem (postgres semaphores under Win32 uses ShmemIndex which uses
> spinlocks which use shared memory which use semaphores which ...).

The correct solution to that seems to lie elsewhere, ie, not use
semaphores for spinlocks.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2004-01-12 14:59:39 Request for additional SPI functions.
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-01-12 14:38:11 Re: [HACKERS] IEEE 754