On 2017-04-07 16:36:09 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-07 19:55:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > Improve 64bit atomics support. > > > > > > When adding atomics back in b64d92f1a, I added 64bit support as > > > optional; there wasn't yet a direct user in sight. That turned out to > > > be a bit short-sighted, it'd already have been useful a number of times. > > > > Seems like this killed an arapaima: > > > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=arapaima&dt=2017-04-07%2022%3A06%3A59 > > > > Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted. > > #0 0x00c6a402 in __kernel_vsyscall () > > #0 0x00c6a402 in __kernel_vsyscall () > > #1 0x00284b10 in raise () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #2 0x00286421 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #3 0x084d967e in ExceptionalCondition ( > > conditionName=0xe19dac "(((uintptr_t) ((uintptr_t)(ptr)) + ((8) - 1)) & > > ~((uintptr_t) ((8) - 1))) != (uintptr_t)(ptr)", > > errorType=0xe19831 "UnalignedPointer", > > fileName=0xe19d88 "../../../src/include/port/atomics.h", lineNumber=428) > > at assert.c:54 > > #4 0x00e189b0 in pg_atomic_init_u64 () > > at ../../../src/include/port/atomics.h:428 > > Gah, that's fairly annoying :(. We can't trivially force alignment in > the generic fallback case, because not all compilers support that. We > don't really need it the fallback case, because things are protected by > a lock - but that means we'll have to make a bunch of locks conditional > :/
Pushed an attempt at fixing this along those lines, let's hope that works. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
