LW_SHARED_MASK macro
Hackers,
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?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Attachments:
lw_shared_mask.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=lw_shared_mask.patchDownload+2-2
Hi,
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...
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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...
Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
On 2015-09-21 22:34:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?
Yes, will do so tomorrow.
Thanks,
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2015-09-21 21:36:15 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-09-21 22:34:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Great. BTW, are you going to commit this?
Yes, will do so tomorrow.
And done. Thanks for noticing.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers