| From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small SSI issues |
| Date: | 2011-06-10 21:38:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20110610213846.GQ26076@csail.mit.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do
> > you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would also
> > allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid
> > warnings.)
>
> I believe we can drop it, I'll double-check.
Yes, dropping it seems like the thing to do. It's been on my list for a
while. We are not really getting anything out of declaring it volatile
since we cast the volatile qualifier away most of the time.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2011-06-11 05:00:19 | Re: literature on write-ahead logging |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2011-06-10 20:51:42 | Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby |