Horton

Re: unconstify equivalent for volatile

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-25T08:29:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On 2019-02-22 21:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-02-22 12:38:35 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-02-19 18:02, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> But even if we were to decide we'd want to keep a volatile in SetLatch()
>>> - which I think really would only serve to hide bugs - that'd not mean
>>> it's a good idea to keep it on all the other functions in latch.c.

> Right. But we should ever look/write into the contents of a latch
> outside of latch.c, so I don't think that'd really be a problem, even if
> we relied on volatiles.

So how about this patch?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Add macro to cast away volatile without allowing changes to underlying type

  2. Initialize structure at declaration