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

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=-p3hmqz2-zaPFhcQk_-htzy9p3ad5d+qS9DzM@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In practice we do not need to worry about changes made with a kernel
> call in between, as any sort of context swap will cause the kernel to
> force cache synchronization.
>

Note that not all kernel calls are equal these days. Some
(gettimeofday on Linux) are implemented as very lightweight calls that
don't do memory map changes and might not trigger the kinds of
synchronization you're talking about. Any IPC kernel calls like kill
will though I'm sure.

-- 
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: knngist - 0.8
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync