From: TJ O'Donnell <tjo@acm.org>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: bryce1@obviously.com
Subject: Re: Bitfields always atomic? Other way to store attributes?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1066.209.223.166.104.1143582901.squirrel@www.gnova.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060328202136.DE3541B8542@mx1.hub.org>
References: <20060328202136.DE3541B8542@mx1.hub.org>
> If I have two threads modifying the same "bit" field:
> thread1=> update table set bf=bf | '01000'
> thread2=> update table set bf=bf | '10000'
> Will this operation always be safe (e.g. result in bf='11000')? Or
Won't this always result in bf='11xxx', depending on the
original values of bf?
TJ
www.gnova.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tjo@acm.org, bryce1@obviously.com
Subject: Re: Bitfields always atomic? Other way to store attributes?
In-Reply-To: <1066.209.223.166.104.1143582901.squirrel@www.gnova.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox