Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There was some recent discussion about getting rid of
>> --disable-spinlocks on the grounds that nobody would use
>> hardware that lacked native spinlocks. But now I wonder
>> if there is a testing/debugging reason to keep it.
> Seems it'd be a lot more straightforward to just add an assertion to the
> x86-64 spinlock implementation verifying that the spinlock isn't already free?
I dunno, is that the only extra check that the --disable-spinlocks
implementation is providing?
I'm kind of allergic to putting Asserts into spinlocked code segments,
mostly on the grounds that it violates the straight-line-code precept.
I suppose it's not really that bad for tests that you don't expect
to fail, but still ...
regards, tom lane
