| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 15:46:08 |
| Message-ID: | 28455.1385653568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
> 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?
Dunno whether there are any in practice, but it's not an assumption
we make anywhere.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2013-11-28 15:49:42 | buildfarm is red |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-28 15:39:18 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |