| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Little cleanup: Move ProcStructLock to the ProcGlobal struct |
| Date: | 2026-02-11 15:29:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4100316.1770823740@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 11/02/2026 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not a great situation. I wonder if we can put back some
>> mode that could be used by a few BF members to catch such oversights.
> Do we still support any architectures where initializing the spinlock to
> all-zeros doesn't do the right thing? Could we accept that all-zeros is
> a valid initialization of a spinlock?
I'm not terribly comfortable with that: it seems short-sighted.
Even today, on platforms where we use __sync_lock_test_and_set /
__sync_lock_release, the gcc manual does not quite promise that
the released state is all-zero.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-02-11 16:07:37 | Re: Improving GUC prefix ownership for extensions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-02-11 15:05:27 | Re: Little cleanup: Move ProcStructLock to the ProcGlobal struct |