Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Date: 2021-04-30 03:22:55
Message-ID: CAGRY4nwR=qCsdME8KxWjpF3taKW=ymOsMO=xCJey9wBxECxWDA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:31, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > So if you could produce a separate patch that adds the
> > _ENABLED guards targeting PG14 (and PG13), that would be helpful.
>
> Here is a proposed patch for this.

LGTM.

Applies and builds fine on master and (with default fuzz) on
REL_13_STABLE. Works as expected.

This does increase the size of LWLockAcquire() etc slightly but since
it skips these function calls, and the semaphores are easily
predicted, I don't have any doubt it's a net win. +1 for merge.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2021-04-30 03:23:56 Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-04-30 03:12:47 Re: Replication slot stats misgivings