| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile |
| Date: | 2019-02-22 20:31:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20190222203139.wqwfzilh6gopjij6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-02-22 12:38:35 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-02-19 18:02, Andres Freund wrote:
> > But even if we were to decide we'd want to keep a volatile in SetLatch()
> > - which I think really would only serve to hide bugs - that'd not mean
> > it's a good idea to keep it on all the other functions in latch.c.
>
> What is even the meaning of having a volatile Latch * argument on a
> function when the actual latch variable (MyLatch) isn't volatile? That
> would just enforce certain constraints on the compiler inside that
> function but not on the overall program, right?
Right. But we should ever look/write into the contents of a latch
outside of latch.c, so I don't think that'd really be a problem, even if
we relied on volatiles.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Regina Obe | 2019-02-22 20:33:08 | CTE Changes in PostgreSQL 12, can we have a GUC to get old behavior |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-02-22 19:57:53 | Re: proposal: variadic argument support for least, greatest function |