On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:32:38PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:10 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> I'm not sure this is quite right - don't we need a memory barrier. But I >> don't >> see a reason to not just leave this code as-is. I think this should be >> optimized entirely in lwlock.c > > Actually, we don't need that at all as LWLockWaitForVar() will return > immediately if the lock is free. So, I removed it.
I briefly looked at the latest patch set, and I'm curious how this change avoids introducing memory ordering bugs. Perhaps I am missing something obvious. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
