Re: [HACKERS] LW_SHARED_MASK macro

2015-09-22 Thread Andres Freund 
On 2015-09-21 21:36:15 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 22:34:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?
> 
> Yes, will do so tomorrow.

And done. Thanks for noticing.

Andres


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

Re: [HACKERS] LW_SHARED_MASK macro

2015-09-21 Thread Andres Freund 
On 2015-09-21 22:34:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?

Yes, will do so tomorrow.

Thanks,

Andres


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

[HACKERS] LW_SHARED_MASK macro

2015-09-17 Thread Alexander Korotkov 
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(>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

Re: [HACKERS] LW_SHARED_MASK macro

2015-09-17 Thread Andres Freund 
Hi,


On 2015-09-17 14:35:20 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> 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(>nwaiters),
> !!(state & LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK;
> 
> 
> Should it be ((uint32) ((1 << 24)-1)) instead?

Argh, that's somewhat embarassing. You're absolutely right. Luckily it's
only used for LOCK_DEBUG, but still...

Andres


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