Re: Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ?