On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is the c.h change above on anything resembling the right track for >> a patch for this? If not, what would such a patch look like? > > It would be nicer if we could come up with an interface that didn't > require #ifdefs everywhere it's used. > > Something like > ... > pg_maybe_atomic int64 threshold_timestamp; > ... > > SpinLockAcquire_if_no_atomics(...) > threshold_timestamp = &oldSnapshotControl->threshold_timestamp; > SpinLockRelease_if_no_atomics(...) > > return threshold_timestamp;
Yeah, I didn't much like including the #ifdefs everywhere; I like your suggestions. Will work up a patch for the next CF along those lines. Thanks! -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
