Re: LW_SHARED_MASK macro

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LW_SHARED_MASK macro
Date: 2015-09-17 14:38:30
Message-ID: 20150917143830.GP2086@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2015-09-17 14:35:20 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> while exploring lwlock.c I found following macro to be strange.
>
> #define LW_SHARED_MASK ((uint32)(1 << 23))
>
> This is macro is used to extract number of shared locks from state.
>
> ereport(LOG,
> (errhidestmt(true),
> errhidecontext(true),
> errmsg("%d: %s(%s): excl %u shared %u haswaiters %u waiters %u rOK %d",
> MyProcPid,
> where, MainLWLockNames[id],
> !!(state & LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE),
> state & LW_SHARED_MASK,
> !!(state & LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS),
> pg_atomic_read_u32(&lock->nwaiters),
> !!(state & LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK))));
>
>
> Should it be ((uint32) ((1 << 24)-1)) instead?

Argh, that's somewhat embarassing. You're absolutely right. Luckily it's
only used for LOCK_DEBUG, but still...

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-09-17 14:46:55 Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2015-09-17 14:37:06 Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals