On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thoughts?
> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this.  If that
> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that
> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID().

I suppose LWLock could include a uint16 member 'id' without making
LWLock any larger, since it would replace the padding between
'tranche' and 'state'.  But I think a better solution, if anyone
really wants these T_ID numbers from a dtrace script, would be to add
lock address to the existing lwlock probes, and then figure out a way
to add some new probes to report the base and stride in the right
places so you can do the book keeping in dtrace variables.

Thomas Munro

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to