On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that
> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that
> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID().
I suppose LWLock could include a uint16 member 'id' without making
LWLock any larger, since it would replace the padding between
'tranche' and 'state'. But I think a better solution, if anyone
really wants these T_ID numbers from a dtrace script, would be to add
lock address to the existing lwlock probes, and then figure out a way
to add some new probes to report the base and stride in the right
places so you can do the book keeping in dtrace variables.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com