Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Dan Ports <d...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: >> The memory barrier when acquiring the buffer page lwlock acts as >> the synchronization point we need. When we see that no >> serializable transactions are running, that could have been >> reordered, but that read still had to come after the lock was >> taken. That's all we need: even if another backend starts a >> serializable transaction after that, we know it can't take any >> SIREAD locks on the same target while we're holding the buffer >> page lock. > > Sounds like that might be worth a comment. There were comments; after reading that post, do you think they need to be expanded or reworded?: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=02e6a115cc6149551527a45545fd1ef8d37e6aa0 -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
