On 2015-09-15 12:51:24 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > We had a version like your patch. But this is only half the work. Example: > state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state); > if ((state & BUF_REFCOUNT_MASK) == 0 > && (state & BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK) == 0)
> After the first command somebody can change buf->state and local state not > actual. No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock. > In this embodiment, there is no significant difference between the two > patches. For honest work will need used the CAS for all IF statement. What? > Thanks! Hope for understanding. ^_^ There's pretty little understanding left at this point. You're posting things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond to points raised. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
