Re: Why are we waiting?
| От | Jignesh K. Shah |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why are we waiting? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 47AB4688.1020204@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Why are we waiting? (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | 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? > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: