Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2020-06-18 16:21:51
Message-ID: CA+TgmobQP3_9VOra+Bk08BZg+fyHB8hJT99rDOYQu7-S=Dfusg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Sure, but wouldn't making the SpinLockAcquire layer into static inlines be
> sufficient to address that point, with no need to touch s_lock.h at all?

I mean, wouldn't you then end up with a bunch of 1-line functions
where you can step into the function but not through whatever
individual things it does?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-06-18 16:24:31 Re: jsonpath versus NaN
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-06-18 16:07:44 Re: jsonpath versus NaN