| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(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 14:09:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY282azQpiGRO-XbpU8WZLbfQTj6CSMKU81m9gEJdqc9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
We're not going to backpatch the main patch to make spinlock
primitives act as compiler barriers - or at least, I will object
loudly.
But what we're talking about here is a bug fix for Sparc. And surely
we ought to back-patch that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-09-08 14:10:23 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-08 14:08:04 | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |