pgsql: Seems I was too optimistic in supposing that sinval's maxMsgNum

From: tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org (Tom Lane)
To: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: pgsql: Seems I was too optimistic in supposing that sinval's maxMsgNum
Date: 2008-06-20 00:24:54
Message-ID: 20080620002454.1C830754595@cvs.postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Log Message:
-----------
Seems I was too optimistic in supposing that sinval's maxMsgNum could be
read and written without a lock. The value itself is atomic, sure, but on
processors with weak memory ordering it's possible for a reader to see the
value change before it sees the associated message written into the buffer
array. Fix by introducing a spinlock that's used just to read and write
maxMsgNum. (We could do this with less overhead if we recognized a concept
of "memory access barrier"; is it worth introducing such a thing? At the
moment probably not --- I can't measure any clear slowdown from adding the
spinlock, so this solution is probably fine.) Per buildfarm results.

Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/backend/storage/ipc:
sinvaladt.c (r1.71 -> r1.72)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/storage/ipc/sinvaladt.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72)

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message User Fxjr 2008-06-22 16:21:39 npgsql - Npgsql2: [#1003400] Later type binding for DbType.Object
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-06-19 21:32:56 pgsql: Rewrite the sinval messaging mechanism to reduce contention and