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: 2020-06-11T19:50:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:26 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Well, pss_barrierCheckMask member is just 32bit, so it seems odd to
> declare the local variable 64bit?
>
>         uint64          flagbit = UINT64CONST(1) << (uint64) type;
> ...
>                 pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(&slot->pss_barrierCheckMask, flagbit);

Oooooops.

-- 
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.