On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2015-09-17 14:35:20 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > while exploring lwlock.c I found following macro to be strange. > > #define LW_SHARED_MASK ((uint32)(1 << 23)) > > This is macro is used to extract number of shared locks from state. > > ereport(LOG, > (errhidestmt(true), > errhidecontext(true), > errmsg("%d: %s(%s): excl %u shared %u haswaiters %u waiters %u rOK %d", > MyProcPid, > where, MainLWLockNames[id], > !!(state & LW_VAL_EXCLUSIVE), > state & LW_SHARED_MASK, > !!(state & LW_FLAG_HAS_WAITERS), > pg_atomic_read_u32(&lock->nwaiters), > !!(state & LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK)))); > > > Should it be ((uint32) ((1 << 24)-1)) instead?
Argh, that's somewhat embarassing. You're absolutely right. Luckily it's only used for LOCK_DEBUG, but still...