| From: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Staale Smedseng <Staale(dot)Smedseng(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Date: | 2008-02-07 17:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | 47AB4688.1020204@sun.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I dont think my earlier message got through..
We use separate lookup tables for 825 and 83 based on the respective
lwlock.h for that version.
-Jignesh
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:29 +0100, Staale Smedseng wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I am wondering if the waits are being
>>> attributed to the right locks --- I remember such an error in a previous
>>> set of dtrace results, and some of the other details such as claiming
>>> shared lock delays but no exclusive lock delays for FirstLockMgrLock
>>> seem less than credible as well.
>>>
>> Good catch. We've checked the DTrace scripts against the respective
>> versions of lwlock.h, and the FirstLockMgrLock is off (this is actually
>> the results for FirstBufMappingLock).
>>
>
> I just realised you are using a lookup to get the text for the name of
> the lock. You used the same lookup table for both releases?
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Staale Smedseng | 2008-02-07 18:06:45 | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-02-07 17:53:38 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |