On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:04:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 07:01:38AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> I share the same understanding and I think those can be removed.
>>
>> The patch LGTM.
>
> That sounds about right. All the volatile references we have here
> h
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 07:01:38AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I share the same understanding and I think those can be removed.
>
> The patch LGTM.
That sounds about right. All the volatile references we have here
have been kept under the assumption that a memory barrier is required.
As we
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:24:54PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> While looking into converting pgssEntry->mutex to an LWLock (per a
> suggestion elsewhere [0]), I noticed that pg_stat_statements uses
> "volatile" quite liberally. IIUC we can remove these as of commit 0709b7e
> (like commits
While looking into converting pgssEntry->mutex to an LWLock (per a
suggestion elsewhere [0]), I noticed that pg_stat_statements uses
"volatile" quite liberally. IIUC we can remove these as of commit 0709b7e
(like commits 8f6bb85, df4077c, and 6ba4ecb did in other areas). All of
the uses in pg_sta
