Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It makes for a cleaner commit history if you push concurrently into
> all the branches you intend to patch.  That also gives more buildfarm
> runs, which seems like a good thing for this sort of patch.
>
> That is, assuming that we ought to backpatch at all, which to my mind
> is debatable.

We're not going to backpatch the main patch to make spinlock
primitives act as compiler barriers - or at least, I will object
loudly.

But what we're talking about here is a bug fix for Sparc.  And surely
we ought to back-patch that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company