Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date
Msg-id 17975.1290207541@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> But what about timings vs. random other stuff?  Like in this case
> there's a problem if the signal arrives before the memory update to
> latch->is_set becomes visible.  I don't know what we need to do to
> guarantee that.

I don't believe there's an issue there.  A context swap into the kernel
is certainly going to include msync.  If you're afraid otherwise, you
could put an msync before the kill() call, but I think it's a waste of
effort.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: duplicate connection failure messages
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)