Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile
Date: 2019-02-19 16:48:16
Message-ID: 32654.1550594896@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> The real reason why variables commonly need to be volatile when used in
> signal handlers is not the signal handler side, but the normal code flow
> side.

Yeah, exactly. You have not explained why it'd be safe to ignore that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-02-19 16:52:11 Re: Some thoughts on NFS
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-19 16:45:59 Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name