Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTi=+dYw6Q_OCckT0jb612H8mfAqd+kGQ-QuVB+id@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> So the complicated case seems to be !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) which uses
> spinlocks for that purpose - no idea where that is true these days.

Me neither, which is exactly the problem.  Under Tom's proposal, any
architecture we don't explicitly provide for, breaks.

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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication