Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > 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.
> 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? Dunno whether there are any in practice, but it's not an assumption we make anywhere. 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