Re: max_wal_senders must die - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date
Msg-id 4CE04A4C.3090003@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: max_wal_senders must die  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: max_wal_senders must die
List pgsql-hackers
On 13.11.2010 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  writes:
>> Come to think of it, I'm not really sure I understand what protects
>> SetLatch() against memory ordering hazards.  Is that actually safe?
>
> Hmm ... that's a good question.  It certainly *looks* like it could
> malfunction on machines with weak memory ordering.

Can you elaborate?

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE behaviour
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: pg_stat_bgwriter broken?