Horton

Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-06-18T16:21:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Sure, but wouldn't making the SpinLockAcquire layer into static inlines be
> sufficient to address that point, with no need to touch s_lock.h at all?

I mean, wouldn't you then end up with a bunch of 1-line functions
where you can step into the function but not through whatever
individual things it does?

-- 
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.