Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2016-04-12 11:52:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It strikes me that that means you could stick with this initialization >> method if you made the macro argument be a literal constant string name, >> like "buffer spinlock", and printed that rather than the address in >> s_lock_stuck. This would be different from what we do now, but not >> necessarily any less useful.
> I'm not sure anybody really benefits from those addresses; I guess the > idea was that they'd allow you to figure out which exact spinlock got > stuck; file + line doesn't necessarily help there. But it doesn't seem > super useful, ASLR makes the addesses unpredictable, so you need a core > file anyway - in which case you can just walk the stack. True. > So I think I'm on board with replacing the argument; although I'm > wondering if we shouldn't just remove it entirely, rather than replacing > it with a string that's likely just going to duplicate the file/line > information. Good point, it would be absolutely duplicative. What I'd suggest, actually, is that we convert this to the same info as what elog provides (file+line+function name). The line number is often hard to decipher if you're not sure exactly what PG version you're dealing with, so I think having the function name would be a sufficient advance to rebut any claim that we'd gone backwards. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers