Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but
> > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that
> > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the
> > first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dereferences a NULL pointer.
> > This is the result of the following commit:
>
> > commit 0180bd6180511875db046bf8ddcaa633a2952dfd
>
> +1 for just reverting that commit. I'm not sure how much use the
> LOCK_DEBUG infrastructure has in exactly its current form, but I can
> certainly imagine wanting to use it or some variant of it to debug
> tough problems. If it's gone entirely, people would have to reinvent
> most of it for that type of debugging. On the other side of the coin,
> I don't have a clear enough use-case for it to want to spend time
> right now on redesigning it, nor a clear idea of exactly what changes
> might make it more useful. So I think we should just revert and
> not spend additional effort now.

I am confused. I thought it was lock_debug referencing user locks that
was broken. Does lock_debug need user locks?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +