Hi, On 2023-10-20 15:59:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > In addition to the point Tom has made, I think it's also not correct that > > hppa > > doesn't impose a burden: hppa is the only of our architectures that doesn't > > actually support atomic operations, requiring us to have infrastructure to > > backfill atomics using spinlocks. This does preclude some uses of atomics, > > e.g. in signal handlers - I think Thomas wanted to do so for some > > concurrency > > primitive. > > Hmm, are you saying there's more of port/atomics/ that could be > removed? What exactly?
I was thinking we could remove the whole fallback path for atomic operations, but it's a bit less, because we likely don't want to mandate support for 64bit atomics yet. That'd still allow removing more than half of src/include/port/atomics/fallback.h and src/backend/port/atomics.c - and more if we finally decided to require a spinlock implementation. > Do we really want to assume that all future architectures will have atomic > operations? Yes. Outside of the tiny microcontrollers, which obviously won't run postgres, I cannot see any future architecture not having support for atomic operations. Greetings, Andres Freund
