From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: convert SpinLock* macros to static inline functions
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:33:46 -0600
Message-ID: <aZzHuiUe7uegX-tT@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aZc1dO205sbKvkZp@nathan>
References: <aZX2oUcKf7IzHnnK@nathan>
<wbbl44cvhsbt5nm2yi7e67mpgztn56j65yznlkkzlcp3sriy6f@t4p5e6knf5hv>
<aZc1dO205sbKvkZp@nathan>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 10:08:20AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Perhaps it's still worth doing out of an abundance of caution, or maybe I
> am missing something subtle about the liberties that compilers take in this
> area...
Committed. I ended up abandoning 0001 and adding volatile to the SpinLock*
function signatures, as Andres suggested.
--
nathan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, hlinnaka@iki.fi
Subject: Re: convert SpinLock* macros to static inline functions
In-Reply-To: <aZzHuiUe7uegX-tT@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox