On Tuesday 22 February 2011 09:59:21 Marti Raudsepp wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:38, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > + SpinLockAcquire(&WalSndCtl->ctlmutex); > > + result = WalSndCtl->sync_rep_service_available; > > + SpinLockRelease(&WalSndCtl->ctlmutex); > > > > volatile pointer needs to be used to prevent code rearrangement. > > I don't think that's necessary. Spinlock functions already prevent > reordering using __asm__ __volatile__ > > Otherwise, surely they would be utterly broken? Its not the spinlock thats the problem but that "result" may be already loaded into a register. Thats not prohibited by __asm__ __volatile__.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
