Re: Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Obsolete use of volatile in walsender.c, walreceiver.c, walreceiverfuncs.c?
Date: 2015-10-16 02:36:51
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQUcqomB_Lw9TSQj3RMKeuCjrJykKejKmi4g9-PcKVR6g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Right, see attached.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that we could as well simplify checkpoint.c and
>>> logical.c. In those files volatile casts are used as well to protect
>>> from reordering for spinlock operations. See for example 0002 on top
>>> of 0001 that is Thomas' patch.
>>
>> These patches look good to me, so I have committed them.
>
> Thanks. Also, spin.h's comment contains an out of date warning about
> this. Here's a suggested fix for that, and a couple more volatrivia
> patches.

I have looked at the rest of the code, and it seems that we can get
rid of volatile in a couple of extra places like in the attached as
those are used with spin locks. This applies on top of Thomas' set.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20151016_volatile_remove.patch text/x-diff 5.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2015-10-16 03:04:00 TODO list updates
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-10-16 02:14:58 Re: Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap'