On 2016-04-12 11:52:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > It looks like that compiler adheres to the C89 restriction that an > > initializer for an array or struct must contain only link-time-constant > > expressions, even if the target object is of dynamic scope. > > The macro works with a link-time-constant pointer argument, but not > > with one that must be evaluated at runtime. > > It strikes me that that means you could stick with this initialization > method if you made the macro argument be a literal constant string name, > like "buffer spinlock", and printed that rather than the address in > s_lock_stuck. This would be different from what we do now, but not > necessarily any less useful.
I'm not sure anybody really benefits from those addresses; I guess the idea was that they'd allow you to figure out which exact spinlock got stuck; file + line doesn't necessarily help there. But it doesn't seem super useful, ASLR makes the addesses unpredictable, so you need a core file anyway - in which case you can just walk the stack. So I think I'm on board with replacing the argument; although I'm wondering if we shouldn't just remove it entirely, rather than replacing it with a string that's likely just going to duplicate the file/line information. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
