Re: C11 / VS 2019

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C11 / VS 2019
Date: 2025-06-03 14:01:58
Message-ID: 839151.1748959318@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Will it mean we can implement atomics in term of C11 atomics?

Any such change would have to be supported by extensive performance
testing to verify that there's not a regression on any supported
platform. Yeah, it'd be cool if we could rip out a lot of that
code, but we aren't going to just rip on faith.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2025-06-03 14:02:53 Re: Incremental Sort Cost Estimation Instability
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2025-06-03 13:53:50 Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path