Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I agree that volatile-izing everything in the vicinity is a sucky >> solution, but the last time we looked at this there did not seem to >> be a better one.
> Well, Linux has a barrier() primitive which is defined as a > compiler-barrier, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to manage > the same thing. In fact, we've already got it, though it's presently > unused; see storage/barrier.h. Solving the problem for linux only, or gcc only, isn't going to get us to a place where we can stop volatile-izing call sites. We need to be sure it works for every single case supported by s_lock.h. I think you may be right that using __asm__ __volatile__ in gcc S_UNLOCK cases would be a big step forward, but it needs more research to see if that's the only fix needed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers