Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Does any of this need to be backpatched?
No --- we didn't have any per-buffer spinlocks before 8.1. It's possible that at some point we'll need to start thinking about applying volatile-pointer coding rules to data structures protected by LWLocks. This could only become an issue if the compiler (a) inlines LWLockAcquire/Release, and (b) tries to rearrange loads and stores around the LWLock code. I would like to think that the latter is impossible even with inlining, principally because the compiler can't ignore the kernel calls that may occur within the LWLock routines; those should be treated as external function calls and hence sequence points, no matter how aggressive the compiler gets. But we'll see. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend