On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 02:52:46PM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 2:28 PM Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> > wrote: >> However, as soon as I did this, I got a bunch of build failures because >> various parts of the code still use volatile qualifiers quite liberally. >> It looks like most of these (e.g., see code from commits 2487d872e0, >> 966fb05b58, 4bc15a8bfb, and 4db3744f1f) predate making spinlocks compiler >> barriers (commit 0709b7ee72) or were cargo-culted from code that predated >> it. So, IIUC, it's probably safe to remove these volatile qualifiers now. >> We could alternatively add volatile qualifiers to the new static inline >> function parameters, but that seems like it might just encourage continued >> unnecessary use. > > Just wondering if there's some code-path that uses it inside > PG_TRY..PG_CATCH that can use longjump.
I didn't notice any such code. For reference, we only need "volatile" in PG_TRY..PG_CATCH code if a local variable is modified in the PG_TRY section and used in the PG_CATCH section. -- nathan
