Horton

Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-06-10T11:26:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:19 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Randomly noticed while looking at the code:
>         uint64          flagbit = UINT64CONST(1) << (uint64) type;
>
> that shouldn't be 64bit, right?

I'm going to admit ignorance here. What's the proper coding rule?

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

Commits

  1. Convert SpinLock* macros to static inline functions.

  2. Clean up includes of s_lock.h.

  3. Fix deadlock danger when atomic ops are done under spinlock.

  4. Add basic spinlock tests to regression tests.

  5. spinlock emulation: Fix bug when more than INT_MAX spinlocks are initialized.

  6. Avoid potential spinlock in a signal handler as part of global barriers.

  7. Make pg_stat_wal_receiver consistent with the WAL receiver's shmem info

  8. Improve 64bit atomics support.