Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows.

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Victor Spirin <v(dot)spirin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows.
Date: 2022-04-13 15:38:29
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On April 13, 2022 8:30:33 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:03 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > Next decade's hot new processor design might do things
>> > differently enough that it matters that we use SpinLockInit()
>> > not memset-to-zero. This is not academic either, as we've had
>> > exactly such bugs in the past.
>> FWIW, I'l like to make spinlocks and atomics assert out if they've not
>> been initialized (which'd include preventing uninitialized use of
>> lwlocks). It's easy to accidentally zero out the state or start out
>> uninitialized. Right now nothing will complain on platforms created
>> after 1700 or using --disable-spinlocks --disable-atomics. That should
>> be caught well before running on the buildfarm...
>I don't understand this bit about platforms created after 1700. Before
>1700, they didn't even have computers.
>Am I being really dense here?

It was a sarcastic reference to the age of pa-risc (the only platform detecting zeroed out spinlocks).


Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-04-13 15:39:02 Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-04-13 15:30:33 Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows.