Re: Small SSI issues

> Dan Ports  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Do checks such as that argue for keeping the volatile flag, or do
>>> you think we can drop it if we make those changes? (That would
>>> also allow dropping a number of casts which exist just to avoid
>>> warnings.)
>>
>> I believe we can drop it, I'll double-check.
> 
> Yes, dropping it seems like the thing to do. It's been on my list
> for a while. We are not really getting anything out of declaring it
> volatile since we cast the volatile qualifier away most of the
> time.
I'm not concerned about references covered by
SerializableXactHashLock.  I am more concerned about some of the
tests for whether the (MySerializableXact == InvalidSerializableXact)
checks and any other tests not covered by that lock are OK without it
(and OK with it).  Since my knowledge of weak memory ordering
behavior is, well, weak I didn't want to try to make that call.
-Kevin