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
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 |