Re: pgsql: Refactor how some aux processes advertise their ProcNumber

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Refactor how some aux processes advertise their ProcNumber
Date: 2026-07-09 11:09:23
Message-ID: CAA-aLv6QWteZC6xnv=7K0ojR2f8SkOZBYp2VQ-ELuxf4ygvEkg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 04:11, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 05:43:01PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Switch to pg_atomic_uint32 for the fields. Seems easier to reason
> > about than volatile pointers. There was some precedence for that, as
> > were already using pg_atomic_uint32 for the procArrayGroupFirst and
> > clogGroupFirst fields, which also store ProcNumbers.
>
> Since removing volatile qualifiers is on my mind, I noticed that this patch
> makes it possible to remove two more. Patch attached.

+1

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2026-07-09 11:56:08 pgsql: JSON_TABLE PLAN clause
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-07-09 08:16:34 pgsql: Prohibit locking clauses on GRAPH_TABLE