Re: Why are we waiting?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why are we waiting?
Date: 2008-02-04 22:06:22
Message-ID: 9205.1202162782@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm thinking of adding an extra parameter onto every call to
> LockBuffer() and LWLockAcquire() to explain the reason for the lock
> request.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this would buy us,
except for being able to track which call site resulted in a wait;
which can already be measured with dtrace, no?

I'm hesitant to decorate such widely-used functions with extra tracing
information. You'd be breaking every third-party module and pending
patch that uses either function, and imposing some performance penalty
(probably not much, but it's hard to be sure) into the indefinite
future, for a performance measurement need that might be fleeting.

Basically I'd rather try to attack the problem with dtrace ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-02-04 22:16:07 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: configure tag'd 8.3.0 and built witih autoconf 2.59
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2008-02-04 22:01:44 Re: configurability of OOM killer