On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:54:03PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Noah Misch <n...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > This is attractive, and I don't see any problems with it. (In theory, you > > could > > hit a case where the load of resetState gives an ancient "false" just as the > > counters wrap to match. Given that the wrap interval is 1000000x as long > > as the > > reset interval, I'm not worried about problems on actual silicon.) > > It's actually 262,144 times as long - see MSGNUMWRAPAROUND.
Ah, so it is. > It would be pretty easy to eliminate even the theoretical possibility > of a race by getting rid of resetState altogether and using nextMsgNum > = -1 to mean that. Maybe I should go ahead and do that. Seems like a nice simplification. -- Noah Misch http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
