On 2016-04-11 23:59:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Will fix (both initialization and use of pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32), and > > expand the documentation on why only atomic read/write are supposed to > > be used. > > FWIW, I'd vote against adding a SpinLockInit there.
Well, it'd not be a SpinLockInit, but a pg_atomic_init_u32(), but ... > What it would mostly > do is prevent noticing future mistakes of the same ilk. It would be > better no doubt if we didn't have to rely on a nearly-dead platform > to detect this; but having such detection of a performance bug is better > than having no detection. Ok, works for me as well. I guess it'd be useful to add a "modern" animal that disables spinlocks & atomics... - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
