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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTi=-p3hmqz2-zaPFhcQk_-htzy9p3ad5d+qS9DzM@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In practice we do not need to worry about changes made with a kernel
> call in between, as any sort of context swap will cause the kernel to
> force cache synchronization.
>

Note that not all kernel calls are equal these days. Some
(gettimeofday on Linux) are implemented as very lightweight calls that
don't do memory map changes and might not trigger the kinds of
synchronization you're talking about. Any IPC kernel calls like kill
will though I'm sure.

-- 
greg


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: knngist - 0.8
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Spread checkpoint sync