Re: max_wal_senders must die

On 13.11.2010 17:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  writes:
>> Come to think of it, I'm not really sure I understand what protects
>> SetLatch() against memory ordering hazards.  Is that actually safe?
>
> Hmm ... that's a good question.  It certainly *looks* like it could
> malfunction on machines with weak memory ordering.

Can you elaborate?

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com