On 2013-11-28 10:31:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The only remaining risk is that, if pointer > fetch/store isn't atomic, we might fetch a half-updated pointer; which > will be non-null, but not something we can use to reach the list. Since > we do purport to support such architectures, we'd better apply the patch. > I'll change the comment a bit to mention this.
We do support such architectures? Don't we already assume we can store xids atomically (c.f. GetOldestActiveTransactionId())? Do we support a 64bit arch, that has a atomic 4byte store, but not atomic 8byte stores? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
