|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.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
|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.|