On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 6:55 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 9:46 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2026, 16:18 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2026-04-07 21:05:40 +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> >> > I’ve posted two patches. The first fixes the duplication issue
> >> > reported by Andres and is fairly straightforward. The second turned
> >> > out to be more complex than expected, and I’m still working through
> >> > possible solutions. Feedback or alternative approaches would be very
> >> > helpful.
> >> > I also spent some time drafting a patch to address the memory ordering
> >> > issue and will post it later.
> >>
> >> I propose quickly applying a minimal patch like the attached, to get the test
> >> performance back to normal.
> >>
> >> Will do so unless somebody protests within in one CI cycle and one coffee.
> >
> >
> > I would be able to review them only after several hours. But +1 for applying now to get rid of buildfarm slowdown.
>
> Here is a patch addressing the memory order issue reported earlier.
I agree to change in WaitLSNWakeup(), memory barrier looks necessary there.
Regarding GetCurrentLSNForWaitType(), I don't think barrier is needed
here, nor think it makes things clearer. I think it would be enough
to comment that LWLock operations in addLSNWaiter()/deleteLSNWaiter()
provide necessary barriers.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
