Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=+dYw6Q_OCckT0jb612H8mfAqd+kGQ-QuVB+id@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> So the complicated case seems to be !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) which uses
> spinlocks for that purpose - no idea where that is true these days.

Me neither, which is exactly the problem.  Under Tom's proposal, any
architecture we don't explicitly provide for, breaks.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication