Re: [HACKERS] dtrace probes
От | Jesper Pedersen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] dtrace probes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19cb453b-6004-5006-1dbc-fc4fdafca7db@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] dtrace probes (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] dtrace probes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 04/20/2017 09:24 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> The lwlock dtrace probes define LWLockMode as int, and the >> TRACE_POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK methods are called using both a variable and >> constant definition. >> >> This leads to a mix of argument definitions depending on the call site, as >> seen in probes.txt file. >> >> A fix is to explicit cast 'mode' to int such that all call sites will use >> the >> >> argument #2 4 signed bytes >> >> definition. Attached patch does this. >> > > I think this fix is harmless and has some value in terms of > consistency. One minor suggestion is that you should leave a space > after typecasting. > > - TRACE_POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK_WAIT_DONE(T_NAME(lock), mode); > + TRACE_POSTGRESQL_LWLOCK_WAIT_DONE(T_NAME(lock), (int)mode); > > There should be a space like "(int) mode". > > v2 attached. >> I have verified all dtraces probes for their type, and only the lock__ >> methods doesn't aligned with its actual types. >> > > Do you see any problem with that? > Not really, but it would be more clear what the value space of each of the parameters were. >> >> Depending on the feedback I can add this patch to the open item list in >> order to fix it for PostgreSQL 10. >> > > Is there any commit in PG-10 which has caused this behavior? If not, > then I don't think it should be added to open items of PG-10. > > It is really a bug fix, so it could even be back patched. Thanks for the feedback ! Best regards, Jesper -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: