On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but >> >> > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that >> >> > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the >> >> > first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dereferences a NULL pointer. >> >> > This is the result of the following commit: >> >> >> >> > commit 0180bd6180511875db046bf8ddcaa633a2952dfd >> >> >> >> +1 for just reverting that commit. ?I'm not sure how much use the >> >> LOCK_DEBUG infrastructure has in exactly its current form, but I can >> >> certainly imagine wanting to use it or some variant of it to debug >> >> tough problems. ?If it's gone entirely, people would have to reinvent >> >> most of it for that type of debugging. ?On the other side of the coin, >> >> I don't have a clear enough use-case for it to want to spend time >> >> right now on redesigning it, nor a clear idea of exactly what changes >> >> might make it more useful. ?So I think we should just revert and >> >> not spend additional effort now. >> > >> > I am confused. ? I thought it was lock_debug referencing user locks that >> > was broken. ?Does lock_debug need user locks? >> >> It supports tracing them. >> >> The point is, they're not gone. > > Now that we know that the GUC trace_userlocks is used for advisory > locks, should we rename it to trace_advisory_locks?
They referred to as USER_LOCKMETHOD in the code, and anyone who is using this facility is probably also reading the code, so I think it's clear enough as-is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
