Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-09-21T20:21:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I've been thinking about this too and actually went so far as to do >> > some research and put together something that I hope covers most of >> > the interesting cases. The attached patch is pretty much entirely >> > untested, but reflects my present belief about how things ought to >> > work. >> >> And, here's an updated version, with some of the more obviously broken >> things fixed. > > You declare dummy_spinlock variable as extren and use it, but it is not > defined anywhere. Wouldn't that be a linker error? Yeah, we need to add that somewhere, maybe s_lock.c -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company