| From: | Staale Smedseng <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Date: | 2008-02-07 18:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1202407605.4892.90.camel@khepri29 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 18:12, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I just realised you are using a lookup to get the text for the name of
> the lock. You used the same lookup table for both releases?
Oh, it wasn't quite that bad. :-) The two DTrace scripts had been
revised to correspond with the two different declarations of LWLockId in
lwlock.h (for 8.2.5 and 8.3 respectively). But somehow the value for the
last lock in our lookup table corresponding to
FirstLockMgrLock = FirstBufMappingLock + NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS,
in the enum got turned into n+1 instead of n+NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS. The
other locks should have been output correctly, however.
But as Tom pointed out, the dynamic locks were not in the equation. So
now we're measuring all lock waits instead of assuming. :-)
Staale
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2008-02-07 18:07:06 | Re: Problem with site doc search |
| Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2008-02-07 17:57:28 | Re: Why are we waiting? |