Hello, At Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:31:24 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAHGQGwE1OvB=HLcahLeL5oP66sxsfsGMgwU3MqAAwZ_Vr=x...@mail.gmail.com> > > If we are allowed to be tolerant of the temporary lack of > > coherence in shared memory there, the spinlock could be removed. > > But the possibility to read garbage by using XLogCtl itself to > > access standbyMode does not seem to be tolerable. What do you > > think about that? > > I'm not sure if we really need to worry about that for such shared variable > that doesn't change since it's been initialized at the start of recovery. > Anyway, if we really need to worry about that, we need to protect the > shared variable RecoveryTargetTLI and archiveCleanupCommand with > the spinlock because they are in the same situation as standbyMode.
>From I said that the former (spinlock) could be dropped, but the latter (read as volatile) should be needed. >From the view of maintenancibility (suspicious-proof expression?), it may be preferable that the manner to read shared memory be uniform whole source code if no particular reasons. Concerning this point, I think I will do 'volatization' and do not spinlock and put comment instead. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center == My e-mail address has been changed since Apr. 1, 2012. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
