Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work
Date
Msg-id 20161005180510.qopm4lbm7d7zzllt@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2016-10-05 14:01:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think what is happening is that there are circular assumptions that end
> up trying to implement a spinlock in terms of a spinlock, or otherwise
> somehow recursively use the process's semaphore.  It's a bit hard to tell
> though because the atomics code is such an underdocumented rat's nest of
> #ifdefs.

I don't think that should be the case, but I'll look into it.  How long
did it take for you to reproduce the issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Move allocation size overflow handling to MemoryContextAllocExtended()?