| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) |
| Date: | 2020-06-17 19:45:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1456434.1592423122@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This seems like it's straight out of the department of pointless
> abstraction layers. Maybe we should remove all of the S_WHATEVER()
> stuff and just define SpinLockAcquire() where we currently define
> S_LOCK(), SpinLockRelease() where we currently define S_UNLOCK(), etc.
> And, as you say, make them static inline functions while we're at it.
The macros are kind of necessary unless you want to make s_lock.h
a bunch messier, because we use #ifdef tests on them.
We could get rid of the double layer of macros, sure, but TBH that
sounds like change for the sake of change rather than a useful
improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-17 20:05:43 | Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-17 19:27:26 | Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) |