Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:03 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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