Re: trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

If the problem is speed, then this may be faster.

Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
retrieving revision 1.147
diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
*** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -0000 1.147
--- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 9 Mar 2005 08:17:33 -0000
***************
*** 1074,1079 ****
--- 1074,1080 ----
ResourceOwner owner)
{
LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
+ int len;
char *new_status,
*old_status;

***************
*** 1083,1091 ****
locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode);

old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
! new_status = (char *) palloc(strlen(old_status) + 10);
strcpy(new_status, old_status);
! strcat(new_status, " waiting");
set_ps_display(new_status);

awaitedLock = locallock;
--- 1084,1093 ----
locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode);

old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
! len = strlen(old_status);
! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 9);
strcpy(new_status, old_status);
! strcpy(&new_status[len], " waiting");
set_ps_display(new_status);

awaitedLock = locallock;

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42 pm, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> off-by-one is true, but I am not sure if the revised code is faster.
> sprintf() need the extra job to parse the format. In win32, I am sure it is
> much slower.
>
> "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> ???? news:422E3EAC(dot)9000403(at)samurai(dot)com(dot)(dot)(dot)
> > This patch refactors some code in WaitOnLock slightly. The old code was
> > slow, and I believe it was off-by-one (it allocates one byte of memory
> > more than needed).
> >
> > Barring any objections I'll apply this to HEAD later today.
> >
> > -Neil
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> > Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.147
> > diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
> > *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -0000 1.147
> > --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 8 Mar 2005 05:42:06 -0000
> > ***************
> > *** 1076,1081 ****
> > --- 1076,1082 ----
> > LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
> > char *new_status,
> > *old_status;
> > + size_t len;
> >
> > Assert(lockmethodid < NumLockMethods);
> >
> > ***************
> > *** 1083,1091 ****
> > locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode);
> >
> > old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
> > ! new_status = (char *) palloc(strlen(old_status) + 10);
> > ! strcpy(new_status, old_status);
> > ! strcat(new_status, " waiting");
> > set_ps_display(new_status);
> >
> > awaitedLock = locallock;
> > --- 1084,1092 ----
> > locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode);
> >
> > old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
> > ! len = strlen(old_status);
> > ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1);
> > ! sprintf(new_status, "%s waiting", old_status);
> > set_ps_display(new_status);
> >
> > awaitedLock = locallock;
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>