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 http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
