Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks)
Date
Msg-id 1456434.1592423122@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: global barrier & atomics in signal handlers (Re: Atomicoperations within spinlocks)