Sorry to bother you, now I know that there is no problem here. The model for reading and writing of PGXACT::xid and ShmemVariableCache->latestCompletedXid can be simplified as follows:
backend A backend B backend C wlock(XidGenLock); wlock(XidGenLock); rlock(ProcArrayLock); write APgXact->xid; write BPgXact->xid; read latestCompletedXid; unlock(XidGenLock); unlock(XidGenLock); read APgXact->xid; ... read BPgXact->xid; wlock(ProcArrayLock); unlock(ProcArrayLock); write latestCompletedXid; unlock(ProcArrayLock); My previous problem was that C might not be able to see the value of APgXact->xid written by A because there was no obvious acquire-release operation during this. But now I find that there are already some acquire-release operations here. Because of the `unlock(XidGenLock)` in A and `wlock(XidGenLock)` in B and the rules introduced in [Inter-thread happens-before](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order), we can know that the `write APgXact->xid` in A inter-thread happens before `write BPgXact->xid` in B. And `write BPgXact->xid` is sequenced before `write latestCompletedXid` in B according to rules introduced in [Sequenced-before rules](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/eval_order). And similarly `write latestCompletedXid` in B inter-thread happens before `read latestCompletedXid` in C. So the `write APgXact->xid` in A inter-thread happens before `read APgXact->xid` in C. So C can see the value of APgXact->xid written by A.