| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile |
| Date: | 2019-03-04 10:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | e5b87e21-1496-bfd0-5ec4-9b1133cbc58c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-02-25 09:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-02-22 21:31, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2019-02-22 12:38:35 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 2019-02-19 18:02, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> But even if we were to decide we'd want to keep a volatile in SetLatch()
>>>> - which I think really would only serve to hide bugs - that'd not mean
>>>> it's a good idea to keep it on all the other functions in latch.c.
>
>> Right. But we should ever look/write into the contents of a latch
>> outside of latch.c, so I don't think that'd really be a problem, even if
>> we relied on volatiles.
>
> So how about this patch?
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2019-03-04 10:37:40 | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |
| Previous Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2019-03-04 10:31:21 | Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor |