Re: pgsql: Improve LWLock scalability.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve LWLock scalability.
Date: 2014-12-25 19:13:08
Message-ID: 26539.1419534788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> This broke dtrace probes in a trivial way. Looking at the log made me
> notice though that the probes in lwlock.c generate warnings since the
> tranche changes went in.

Yeah, dtrace has never behaved very nicely with "const foo *" arguments.
This is a bug in dtrace, not in our usage of it, and I don't think we
should de-constify our code to work around the warnings.

> Personally I think at this point we could just rip the probe support
> out, but I'm not going to fight for that in earnest.

Not without a replacement for the functionality, IMO.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-12-25 19:19:00 Re: pgsql: Improve LWLock scalability.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-12-25 18:53:54 Re: pgsql: Improve LWLock scalability.