Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The macros are kind of necessary unless you want to make s_lock.h
>> a bunch messier, because we use #ifdef tests on them.

> Where?

See the "Default Definitions", down near the end.

>> We could get rid of the double layer of macros, sure, but TBH that
>> sounds like change for the sake of change rather than a useful
>> improvement.

> Really? Multiple layers of macros seem like they pretty clearly make
> the source code harder to understand. There are plenty of places where
> such devices are necessary for one reason or another, but it doesn't
> seem like something we ought to keep around for no reason.

I wouldn't object to making the outer-layer macros in spin.h into static
inlines; as mentioned, that might have some debugging benefits. But I
think messing with s_lock.h for marginal cosmetic reasons is a foolish
idea. For one thing, there's no way whoever does it can verify all the
architecture-specific stanzas. (I don't think we even have all of them
covered in the buildfarm.)

regards, tom lane