Re: Rename trace_userlocks? WAS Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Robert Haas writes: >> >> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but >> >> > the resulting postgres promptly

Rename trace_userlocks? WAS Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas writes: > >> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but > >> > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that > >> > user_lockmethod doesn

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > ... What I think it's mostly doing at this point is making it > more difficult to make further changes - you do whatever you want to > do, and then you have to go figure out what to do about the crazy > LOCK_DEBUG stuff that no one uses. [ shrug... ] If you're sufficiently

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but >> the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that >> user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the >> first LockRe

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >> > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but >> > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that >> > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_f

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but > > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that > > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the > > first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dere

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Haas wrote: > Now, whether or not this facility is well designed is a worthwhile > question. Trace_lock_oidmin seems pretty sketchy to me, especially > because it's blindly applied to even to lock tags where the second > field isn't a relation - i.e. SET_LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION sets it to zero,

Re: [HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but > the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that > user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the > first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dereferences a NULL pointer. >

[HACKERS] LOCK_DEBUG is busted

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Haas
It's possible to compile the source tree with LOCK_DEBUG defined, but the resulting postgres promptly dumps core, due to the fact that user_lockmethod doesn't supply any value for trace_flag; thus, the first LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD) dereferences a NULL pointer. This is the result of the foll