Re: Why are we waiting?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why are we waiting?
Date: 2008-02-05 14:57:00
Message-ID: 1202223420.4252.711.camel@ebony.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:14 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 17:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Basically I'd rather try to attack the problem with dtrace ...
> >
> > OK. I'll switch to Solaris. Or do you something I don't about dtrace on
> > linux?
>
> One idea would be to add new arguments to LWLockAcquire as you suggest,
> but instead of modifying all call sites, decorate it with a macro that
> passes __FILE__ and __LINE__ as the extra arguments. The good thing
> about that is that it's a relatively small patch and you can easily
> switch it on/off with a #ifdef. And there's no need to push for
> inclusion of that into CVS, because it would be an easy patch to
> maintain yourself.

Thanks for the idea. It had occurred to me to make a private patch, but
I prefer my patches to be open, so they're easier to discuss results
arising from them.

--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-02-05 15:24:01 Re: [BUGS] BUG #3909: src\tools\msvc\clean.bat clears parse.h file
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2008-02-05 14:25:39 patternsel() and histogram_selectivity() and the hard cutoff of 100