Re: Why are we waiting?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 9205.1202162782@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Why are we waiting? (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Why are we waiting?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I'm thinking of adding an extra parameter onto every call to
> LockBuffer() and LWLockAcquire() to explain the reason for the lock
> request.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this would buy us,
except for being able to track which call site resulted in a wait;
which can already be measured with dtrace, no?
I'm hesitant to decorate such widely-used functions with extra tracing
information. You'd be breaking every third-party module and pending
patch that uses either function, and imposing some performance penalty
(probably not much, but it's hard to be sure) into the indefinite
future, for a performance measurement need that might be fleeting.
Basically I'd rather try to attack the problem with dtrace ...
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: