On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Here, "the two writes on Worker 0" corresponds to lines 15 and 16. And indeed
> line 16 is exactly the call to SetLatch. For solving problem 1, the mp idiom,
> the following options are possible (in all cases stronger synchronisation
> p
Hi,
[...]
> > Placing a sync (i.e., the strongest Power barrier) accordingly would,
> > however,
> > still be insufficient for the second problem, as it would only fix the
> > reordering of read-read pairs by Worker 1 and the store atomicity issue from
> > Worker 0. But the writes on Worker 0 cou
Hi again,
[...]
>
> However, your example is enough unlike the actual code that the
> conclusion you state following the word "clearly" isn't actually clear
> to me. According to latch.h, the correct method of using a latch is
> like this:
>
> * for (;;)
> * {
> * ResetLatch();
> *
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> In [3] it was suggested to fix the problem by placing a barrier in ResetLatch,
> which corresponds to placing it between lines 11 and 12 in the code above.
> This
> amounts to placing a barrier between the two reads (lines 7/19 and 12
Hi all,
[Bcc'ed Tom Lane as he had done the initial investigation on this.]
Following up on the earlier discussions in
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01575.php
and
[2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00330.php
with an initial fix in
[3]
http:
