Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
От | Ildus Kurbangaliev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55C0B839.9060707@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/04/2015 03:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: >> >* The patch requires that the LWLOCK_INDIVIDUAL_NAMES array is kept in sync >> >with the list of individual locks in lwlock.h. Sooner or later someone will >> >add an LWLock and forget to update the names-array. That needs to be made >> >less error-prone, so that the names are maintained in the same place as the >> >#defines. Perhaps something like rmgrlist.h. > This is a good idea, but it's not easy to do in the style of > rmgrlist.h, because I don't believe there's any way to define a macro > that expands to a preprocessor directive. Attached is a patch that > instead generates the list of macros from a text file, and also > generates an array inside lwlock.c with the lock names that gets used > by the Trace_lwlocks stuff where applicable. > > Any objections to this solution to the problem? If not, I'd like to > go ahead and push this much. I can't test the Windows changes > locally, though, so it would be helpful if someone could check that > out. > In my latest patch I still have an array with names, but postgres will show a message if somebody adds an individual LWLock and forgets to add its name. Code generation is also a solution, and if commiters will support it I'll merge it to main patch. -- Ildus Kurbangaliev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: