Re: LOCK_DEBUG is busted

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but
> > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that
> > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the
> > first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dereferences a NULL pointer.
> > This is the result of the following commit:
> 
> > commit 0180bd6180511875db046bf8ddcaa633a2952dfd
> 
> +1 for just reverting that commit.  I'm not sure how much use the
> LOCK_DEBUG infrastructure has in exactly its current form, but I can
> certainly imagine wanting to use it or some variant of it to debug
> tough problems.  If it's gone entirely, people would have to reinvent
> most of it for that type of debugging.  On the other side of the coin,
> I don't have a clear enough use-case for it to want to spend time
> right now on redesigning it, nor a clear idea of exactly what changes
> might make it more useful.  So I think we should just revert and
> not spend additional effort now.

I am confused.   I thought it was lock_debug referencing user locks that
was broken.  Does lock_debug need user locks?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +