On 13/01/15 19:23, Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote: > Yes, that didn't come out right. I don't mind inserting the > volatile, but I don't know that it helps either. As far as I > understand if it was broken without volatile, then it's still > broken with it - just hopefully less likely to break. And LMDB > couldn't be releaseed with your original unportable sync code > along with the volatile.
Sorry, nevermind. Of course when the writer does sync well enough, volatile + the txn_renew loop will have to do for a sync primitive in the reader. I suppose this requires that sync in the writer thread will shake other threads as well, it won't be private to the writer. -- Hallvard
