On 2015-09-04 09:42:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Antonin Houska <a...@cybertec.at> writes: > > Since SpinLockAcquire() / SpinLockRelease() macros usually reference > > variables > > declared as volatile, I wonder if the following changes should be applied. > > We've been making changes to remove that requirement, so I think that at > least in 9.5/HEAD this isn't an issue anymore.
And even before that the pointer passed to SpinLockAcquire/Release() didn't have to be volatile. The important thing was that read/writes that are protected by the spinlock were only done via volatile variables, to prevent them from being moved outside the critical section. All the tas()/unlock section already force the pointer to the lock to be volatile anyway. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
