| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints |
| Date: | 2021-03-11 07:57:11 |
| Message-ID: | 0a52fe9e-a440-1d19-c796-6c8ba4942942@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.03.21 06:38, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 20:50, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
> <mailto:david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/21 6:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> This patch set no longer applies:
> http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2927.log
> <http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2927.log>.
>
> Can we get a rebase? Also marked Waiting on Author.
>
>
> Rebased as requested.
In patch 0001, why was the TRACE_POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK_RELEASE() call moved?
Is there some correctness issue? If so, we should explain that (at
least in the commit message, or as a separate patch).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2021-03-11 07:57:22 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-03-11 07:56:28 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |