From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted |
Date: | 2011-11-10 22:05:57 |
Message-ID: | 201111102205.pAAM5wc04228@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Now, whether or not this facility is well designed is a worthwhile
> question. Trace_lock_oidmin seems pretty sketchy to me, especially
> because it's blindly applied to even to lock tags where the second
> field isn't a relation - i.e. SET_LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION sets it to zero,
> SET_LOCKTAG_VIRTUALTRANSACTION sets it to the localTransactionId,
> SET_LOCKTAG_OBJECT sets it to the classId member of the objectaddress,
> and advisory locks set it to 32 bits of the user's chosen locktag. So
> by default, with trace_userlocks turned on and no other changes,
> pg_advisory_lock(16384,0) produces output like that shown above and
> pg_advisory_lock(16383,0) is met with silence. So maybe we should
> just rip some or all of this stuff out instead of worrying too much
> about it.
Please rip out whatever I missed. Thanks. The user locks were the old
lock type before we had advisor locks, as far as I remember.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-10 22:07:14 | Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-10 22:04:22 | Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted |