Re: convert SpinLock* macros to static inline functions

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: convert SpinLock* macros to static inline functions
Date: 2026-02-23 21:33:46
Message-ID: aZzHuiUe7uegX-tT@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:08:20AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Perhaps it's still worth doing out of an abundance of caution, or maybe I
> am missing something subtle about the liberties that compilers take in this
> area...

Committed. I ended up abandoning 0001 and adding volatile to the SpinLock*
function signatures, as Andres suggested.

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryan Green 2026-02-23 21:40:57 Re: [PATCH] Add Windows support for backtrace_functions (MSVC only)
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2026-02-23 21:17:05 Re: pgsql: libpq: Grease the protocol by default