On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:38, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > + SpinLockAcquire(&WalSndCtl->ctlmutex); > + result = WalSndCtl->sync_rep_service_available; > + SpinLockRelease(&WalSndCtl->ctlmutex);
> volatile pointer needs to be used to prevent code rearrangement. I don't think that's necessary. Spinlock functions already prevent reordering using __asm__ __volatile__ Otherwise, surely they would be utterly broken? Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
