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
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 |