Tom Lane 195f164228 Get rid of the SpinLockAcquire/SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff distinction ... in favor of having just one set of macros that don't do HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS (hence, these correspond to the old SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff case). Given our coding rules for spinlock use, there is no reason to allow CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to be done while holding a spinlock, and also there is no situation where ImmediateInterruptOK will be true while holding a spinlock. Therefore doing HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS while taking/releasing a spinlock is just a waste of cycles. Qingqing Zhou and Tom Lane.		2005-12-29 18:08:05 +00:00
..
common	I have added these macros to c.h:	2005-12-25 02:14:19 +00:00
gist	Re-run pgindent, fixing a problem where comment lines after a blank	2005-11-22 18:17:34 +00:00
hash	Adjust string comparison so that only bitwise-equal strings are considered	2005-12-22 22:50:00 +00:00
heap	Tweak indexscan machinery to avoid taking an AccessShareLock on an index	2005-12-03 05:51:03 +00:00
index	Tweak indexscan machinery to avoid taking an AccessShareLock on an index	2005-12-03 05:51:03 +00:00
nbtree	Push the responsibility for handling ignore_killed_tuples down into	2005-12-07 19:37:53 +00:00
transam	Get rid of the SpinLockAcquire/SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff distinction	2005-12-29 18:08:05 +00:00
Makefile	R-tree is dead ... long live GiST.	2005-11-07 17:36:47 +00:00