Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
Date: 2020-06-10 11:26:32
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZwihdVft1vehsgP-nG_s8pd+FvtfdMcqDMK_AXqSwdhg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:19 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Randomly noticed while looking at the code:
> uint64 flagbit = UINT64CONST(1) << (uint64) type;
>
> that shouldn't be 64bit, right?

I'm going to admit ignorance here. What's the proper coding rule?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2020-06-10 11:31:50 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-10 11:18:45 Re: FailedAssertion at ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit()