Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZWTOcr8wZo6L-sbHwArTUUsYKzjzyyh=fSGOb3vkFF+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operationswithin spinlocks)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)
Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:37 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hm. Looking at this again, perhaps the better fix would be to simply not
> look at the concrete values of the barrier inside the signal handler?
> E.g. we could have a new PROCSIG_GLOBAL_BARRIER, which just triggers
> ProcSignalBarrierPending to be set. And then have
> ProcessProcSignalBarrier do the check that's currently in
> CheckProcSignalBarrier()?

That seems like a good idea.

Also, I wonder if someone would be willing to set up a BF animal for this.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: Speedup usages of pg_*toa() functions
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is pq_begintypsend so slow?