On 2018-04-06 23:12:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Daniel is working on investigating the isolationtester thing. See a mail on
> one of the threads where initial indications were the "atomics with no real
> atomics" (or whatever you'd call it) were to blame. We could redo that
> thing without atomics to get rid of that (and possibly should), but it
> would be good to figure out if it's actually broken first, so that part can
> get fixed if it is.

Is that an explanation for
? Those all don't seem fall under that? Having proper atomics?


Andres Freund

Reply via email to