Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers
Date: 2014-09-08 14:07:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-09-04 14:19:47 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Yes. I plan to push the patch this weekend. Sorry for the delay.

> I'm about to push this. Is it ok to first push it to master and only
> backpatch once a couple buildfarm cycles haven't complained?

It makes for a cleaner commit history if you push concurrently into
all the branches you intend to patch. That also gives more buildfarm
runs, which seems like a good thing for this sort of patch.

That is, assuming that we ought to backpatch at all, which to my mind
is debatable.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2014-09-08 14:08:02 Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2014-09-08 12:30:32 Re: postgres_fdw behaves oddly