Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-04-13 10:19:44 -0400, Tom Lane 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...
Yeah, even just doing that in --disable-spinlocks builds would be
enough for the purpose, and be much more accessible to Joe Developer.
> Then the zero-state assumption wouldn't require continuing to support
> HPPA.
I wouldn't mind retiring that machine once v11 is EOL. (It's also one
of very few animals testing pre-C99 compilers, so not before then.)
regards, tom lane
