Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows.

Hi,

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).

Andres

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