Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()
Date
Msg-id 20200617040121.GA2917395@rfd.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:35:58PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On June 16, 2020 8:24:29 PM PDT, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >Suppose the initializing process does:
> >
> >  pg_atomic_init_u64(&somestruct->atomic, 123);
> >  somestruct->atomic_ready = true;
> >
> >In released versions, any process observing atomic_ready==true will
> >observe
> >the results of the pg_atomic_init_u64().  After the commit from this
> >thread,
> >that's no longer assured.
> 
> Why did that hold true before? There wasn't a barrier in platforms already (wherever we know what 64 bit reads/writes
havesingle copy atomicity).
 

You are right.  It didn't hold before.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions