| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 15:30:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobjKR-V=cZ3ScZMmOm8M2a_ppW0mkwWQrLVv7Z4aQBg1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-13 15:38:29 | Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-13 15:25:43 | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |