Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h

From: "Tristan Partin" <tristan(at)partin(dot)io>
To: "Nathan Bossart" <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h
Date: 2026-05-04 22:11:02
Message-ID: DIA8J1JHSHDC.30ZW3D22RPCU1@partin.io
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon May 4, 2026 at 4:50 PM CDT, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I noticed that s_lock.h points to a default implementation of tas() in
> tas.s or s_lock.c, but AFAICT there hasn't been a tas() implementation in
> s_lock.c since commit 718aa43a4e, and commit 25f36066dd seems to have
> removed the last remaining tas.s files. So, I think this is dead code.
>
> I also noticed that HAS_TEST_AND_SET just means that TAS is defined, so I
> wrote a 0002 that removes it in favor of checking TAS directly. I'd like
> to rewrite the comment at the top of the file, too, but haven't gotten to
> that yet. I find it a little misleading, especially because we #error if
> TAS isn't defined.

This looks pretty reasonable to me.

--
Tristan Partin
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
AWS (https://aws.amazon.com)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-05-04 22:16:47 Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-05-04 22:00:02 Re: Serverside SNI support in libpq