Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> When a strong lock is taken or released, we have to increment or
> decrement strong_lock_counts[fasthashpartition]. Here's the question:
> is that atomic? In other words, suppose that strong_lock_counts[42]
> starts out at 0, and two backends both do ++strong_lock_counts[42].
> Are we guaranteed to end up with "2" in that memory location or might
> we unluckily end up with "1"? I think the latter is possible... and
> some guard is needed to make sure that doesn't happen.
There are "atomic increment" primitives on most/all multiprocessors,
although availing ourselves of them everywhere will take an amount of
work not unlike developing the spinlock primitives :-(. You are dead
right that this is unsafe without that.
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
