Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Select Git revision
  • benchmark-tools
  • postgres-lambda
  • master default
  • REL9_4_25
  • REL9_5_20
  • REL9_6_16
  • REL_10_11
  • REL_11_6
  • REL_12_1
  • REL_12_0
  • REL_12_RC1
  • REL_12_BETA4
  • REL9_4_24
  • REL9_5_19
  • REL9_6_15
  • REL_10_10
  • REL_11_5
  • REL_12_BETA3
  • REL9_4_23
  • REL9_5_18
  • REL9_6_14
  • REL_10_9
  • REL_11_4
23 results

postgres-lambda-diff

  • Clone with SSH
  • Clone with HTTPS
  • user avatar
    Tom Lane authored
    in favor of having just one set of macros that don't do HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
    (hence, these correspond to the old SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff case).
    Given our coding rules for spinlock use, there is no reason to allow
    CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to be done while holding a spinlock, and also there
    is no situation where ImmediateInterruptOK will be true while holding a
    spinlock.  Therefore doing HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS while taking/releasing a
    spinlock is just a waste of cycles.  Qingqing Zhou and Tom Lane.
    195f1642
    History
    Name Last commit Last update