If the problem is speed, then this may be faster.
Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c =================================================================== RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v retrieving revision 1.147 diff -c -r1.147 lock.c *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -0000 1.147 --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 9 Mar 2005 08:17:33 -0000 *************** *** 1074,1079 **** --- 1074,1080 ---- ResourceOwner owner) { LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid]; + int len; char *new_status, *old_status; *************** *** 1083,1091 **** locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode); old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display()); ! new_status = (char *) palloc(strlen(old_status) + 10); strcpy(new_status, old_status); ! strcat(new_status, " waiting"); set_ps_display(new_status); awaitedLock = locallock; --- 1084,1093 ---- locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode); old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display()); ! len = strlen(old_status); ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 9); strcpy(new_status, old_status); ! strcpy(&new_status[len], " waiting"); set_ps_display(new_status); awaitedLock = locallock; On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42 pm, Qingqing Zhou wrote: > off-by-one is true, but I am not sure if the revised code is faster. > sprintf() need the extra job to parse the format. In win32, I am sure it is > much slower. > > "Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ???? news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This patch refactors some code in WaitOnLock slightly. The old code was > > slow, and I believe it was off-by-one (it allocates one byte of memory > > more than needed). > > > > Barring any objections I'll apply this to HEAD later today. > > > > -Neil > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.147 > > diff -c -r1.147 lock.c > > *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -0000 1.147 > > --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 8 Mar 2005 05:42:06 -0000 > > *************** > > *** 1076,1081 **** > > --- 1076,1082 ---- > > LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid]; > > char *new_status, > > *old_status; > > + size_t len; > > > > Assert(lockmethodid < NumLockMethods); > > > > *************** > > *** 1083,1091 **** > > locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode); > > > > old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display()); > > ! new_status = (char *) palloc(strlen(old_status) + 10); > > ! strcpy(new_status, old_status); > > ! strcat(new_status, " waiting"); > > set_ps_display(new_status); > > > > awaitedLock = locallock; > > --- 1084,1092 ---- > > locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode); > > > > old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display()); > > ! len = strlen(old_status); > > ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1); > > ! sprintf(new_status, "%s waiting", old_status); > > set_ps_display(new_status); > > > > awaitedLock = locallock; > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])