Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Date
Msg-id CAGRY4nwR=qCsdME8KxWjpF3taKW=ymOsMO=xCJey9wBxECxWDA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:31, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > So if you could produce a separate patch that adds the
> > _ENABLED guards targeting PG14 (and PG13), that would be helpful.
>
> Here is a proposed patch for this.

LGTM.

Applies and builds fine on master and (with default fuzz) on
REL_13_STABLE. Works as expected.

This does increase the size of LWLockAcquire() etc slightly but since
it skips these function calls, and the semaphores are easily
predicted, I don't have any doubt it's a net win. +1 for merge.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints