Re: Question on win32 semaphore simulation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA352AB@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Question on win32 semaphore simulation  ("Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>)
Responses Re: Question on win32 semaphore simulation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > As I reviewed the win32/sema.c, there is some code that I am not
> > clear,
> can
> > anybody explain please?
> >
>
> There is another problem related to concurrent operations on
> win32 sema. Say two processes are doing semop(+1)
> concurrently. Look at this code:
>
>   /* Don't want the lock anymore */
>   sem_counts[sops[0].sem_num]++;
>   ReleaseSemaphore(cur_handle, sops[0].sem_op, NULL);
>
> Except for the problem mentioned in the above thread that the
> first line should be: sem_counts[sops[0].sem_num] +=
> sops[0].sem_op, the sem_counts[] are unprotected by anything,
> so we might lose an update. Maybe I totally misunderstand something?

I've never really looked intot eh semaphore stuff, but if sem_counts[]
is in shared memory it should definitly be protected.

Looking at the code, it looks fairly complex to me. I don't really know
how sysv semaphores are supposed to work, or how we use them, but
perhaps the whole piece of code can be simplified?

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with