Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> 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
