Feedback-ID: idd01497b:Fastmail
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 22:11:02 +0000
Message-Id: <DIA8J1JHSHDC.30ZW3D22RPCU1@partin.io>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h
To: "Nathan Bossart" <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
From: "Tristan Partin" <tristan@partin.io>
References: <afkUeI7UhacZ5ZFm@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <afkUeI7UhacZ5ZFm@nathan>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/DIA8J1JHSHDC.30ZW3D22RPCU1%40partin.io>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon May 4, 2026 at 4:50 PM CDT, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I noticed that s_lock.h points to a default implementation of tas() in
> tas.s or s_lock.c, but AFAICT there hasn't been a tas() implementation in
> s_lock.c since commit 718aa43a4e, and commit 25f36066dd seems to have
> removed the last remaining tas.s files.  So, I think this is dead code.
>
> I also noticed that HAS_TEST_AND_SET just means that TAS is defined, so I
> wrote a 0002 that removes it in favor of checking TAS directly.  I'd like
> to rewrite the comment at the top of the file, too, but haven't gotten to
> that yet.  I find it a little misleading, especially because we #error if
> TAS isn't defined.

This looks pretty reasonable to me.

--=20
Tristan Partin
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
AWS (https://aws.amazon.com)