From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution |
Date: | 2016-12-19 03:33:15 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=1q=D3-gdj2GpYg+tq+cVPe+92Txy2jEwN3Nzd81ENHpQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that
> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that
> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID().
I suppose LWLock could include a uint16 member 'id' without making
LWLock any larger, since it would replace the padding between
'tranche' and 'state'. But I think a better solution, if anyone
really wants these T_ID numbers from a dtrace script, would be to add
lock address to the existing lwlock probes, and then figure out a way
to add some new probes to report the base and stride in the right
places so you can do the book keeping in dtrace variables.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-12-19 03:36:14 | Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-12-19 03:25:40 | Re: Retire src/backend/port/dynloader/linux.c ? |