Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> IMHO, the way we have it now is kind of a mess. SpinLockAcquire and
> SpinLockRelease are required to be CPU barriers, but they are not
> required to be compiler barriers. If we changed that so that they
> were required to act as barriers of both flavors,
Since they are macros, how do you propose to do that exactly?
I agree that volatile-izing everything in the vicinity is a sucky
solution, but the last time we looked at this there did not seem to
be a better one.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2012-08-01 04:05:26|
|Subject: Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-07-31 20:03:32|
|Subject: Re: build postgresql on Mac OS X mountain lion with ossp-uuid|