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>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Date: 2021-01-14 08:39:12
Message-ID: CAGRY4nwEcS56yCwz6F-kW6Z6vo=xHNdXjqNDq4vQETf3tA6QSg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 15:56, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On 2020-12-19 06:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Patch 1 fixes a bogus tracepoint where an lwlock__acquire event would be
> > fired from LWLockWaitForVar, despite that function never actually
> > acquiring the lock.
>
> This was added in 68a2e52bbaf when LWLockWaitForVar() was first
> introduced. It looks like a mistake to me too, but maybe Heikki wants
> to comment.
>

I'm certain it's a copy/paste bug.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com 2021-01-14 08:47:12 [bug fix] Fix the size calculation for shmem TOC
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2021-01-14 08:38:59 Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints