Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob6Q+5J4qPtRepMZKjqc0xr47qy8ZnL63vqQeSPvF2rEA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)  (Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I've been thinking about this too and actually went so far as to do
>> > some research and put together something that I hope covers most of
>> > the interesting cases.  The attached patch is pretty much entirely
>> > untested, but reflects my present belief about how things ought to
>> > work.
>>
>> And, here's an updated version, with some of the more obviously broken
>> things fixed.
>
> You declare dummy_spinlock variable as extren and use it, but it is not
> defined anywhere. Wouldn't that be a linker error?

Yeah, we need to add that somewhere, maybe s_lock.c

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gurjeet Singh
Date:
Subject: Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)
Next
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Re: unaccent contrib