On 2014-09-09 17:30:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2014-09-09 13:52:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I had forgotten that it needed an update. Thanks for the reminder. Here's v2.
> >
> > I've attached a incremental patch fixing minor gripes. Other than that I
> > think you can go ahead with this once the buildfarm accepts the sparc
> > fixes (man, those machines are slow. spoonbill apparently takes ~5h for
> > one run).
> >
> > I've done a read through s_lock.h and the only remaining potential issue
> > that I see is that I have no idea if unixware's tas() is actually a safe
> > compiler barrier (it is a memory barrier). And I really, really can't
> > make myself care.
>
> * It is the responsibility of these macros to make sure that the compiler
> * does not re-order accesses to shared memory to precede the actual lock
> - * acquisition, or follow the lock release. Prior to PostgreSQL 9.5, this
> - * was the caller's responsibility, which meant that callers had to use
> + * acquisition, or following the lock release. Prior to PostgreSQL 9.5,
> + * this was the caller's responsibility, which meant that callers had to use
>
> AFAICS my version is right and your version is grammatically
> incorrect. "re-order to proceed or follow" uses the same verb tense in
> both branches of the or; "re-order to proceed or following" does not.
Wasn't sure about that one. It read oddly to me, but then I'm not a
native speaker. And won't read the sentence often ;)
> I agree that if there are problems on UnixWare, we can let anyone who
> cares about UnixWare submit a patch to fix them.
Ok.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services