Re: Our "fallback" atomics implementation doesn't actually work

Hi,

On 2016-10-05 14:01:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think what is happening is that there are circular assumptions that end
> up trying to implement a spinlock in terms of a spinlock, or otherwise
> somehow recursively use the process's semaphore.  It's a bit hard to tell
> though because the atomics code is such an underdocumented rat's nest of
> #ifdefs.

I don't think that should be the case, but I'll look into it.  How long
did it take for you to reproduce the issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund