| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Date: | 2015-06-30 03:05:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaj3AnPFoxN5r_dhMb1-f1A6K=iOpB58HJrMyo9TuF=fw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:So personally,
> I would be inclined to put back the volatile qualifier, independently of
> any fooling around with _Asm_double_magic_xyzzy calls. Or to put it
> differently: where is the evidence that removing the volatile qual is a
> good idea?
Personally, I have found that _Asm_double_magic_xyzzy makes is not
nearly as cromulent as _Asm_triple_magic_plugh. But then, trying to
figure out compiler intrinsics on strange platforms makes me feel very
much like I'm in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-06-30 03:21:11 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-30 03:02:50 | Re: Refactor to split nodeAgg.c? |