Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> In SetLatch, is it enough to add the SpinLockAcquire() call *after*
> checking that is_set is not already set? Ie. still do the quick exit
> without holding a lock. Or do we need a memory barrier operation before
> the fetch, to ensure that we see if the other process has just cleared
> the flag with ResetLatch() ? Presumable ResetLatch() needs to call
> SpinLockAcquire() anyway to ensure that other processes see the clearing
> of the flag.
Hmm ... I just remembered the reason why we didn't use a spinlock in
these functions already. Namely, that it's unsafe for a signal handler
to try to acquire a spinlock that the interrupted code might be holding.
So I think a bit more thought is needed here. Maybe we need to bite the
bullet and do memory barriers ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
