> Dan Ports wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do >>> you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would >>> also allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid >>> warnings.) >> >> I believe we can drop it, I'll double-check. > > Yes, dropping it seems like the thing to do. It's been on my list > for a while. We are not really getting anything out of declaring it > volatile since we cast the volatile qualifier away most of the > time. I'm not concerned about references covered by SerializableXactHashLock. I am more concerned about some of the tests for whether the (MySerializableXact == InvalidSerializableXact) checks and any other tests not covered by that lock are OK without it (and OK with it). Since my knowledge of weak memory ordering behavior is, well, weak I didn't want to try to make that call. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
