Hackers, while exploring lwlock.c I found following macro to be strange.
#define LW_SHARED_MASK ((uint32)(1 << 23))
This is macro is used to extract number of shared locks from state.
ereport(LOG,
(errhidestmt(true),
errhidecontext(true),
errmsg("%d: %s(%s): excl %u shared %u haswaiters %u waiters %u rOK %d",
MyProcPid,
where, MainLWLockNames[id],
!!(state & LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE),
state & LW_SHARED_MASK,
!!(state & LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS),
pg_atomic_read_u32(&lock->nwaiters),
!!(state & LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK))));
Should it be ((uint32) ((1 << 24)-1)) instead?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
lw_shared_mask.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
