| From: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
| Date: | 2014-02-04 08:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20140204083942.GD10459@defunct.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 04/02/14 12:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
> ISTM that the phrase "Request queue" is not used much around the lock.
> Using the phrase "wait queue" or Simon's suggestion sound better to at least me.
> Thought?
Sounds reasonable to me. Attached patch changes messages to the following:
Process holding the lock: A. Wait queue: B.
Processes holding the lock: A, B. Wait queue: C.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| show_pids_in_lock_log_v7.patch | text/x-diff | 7.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-04 09:01:28 | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-02-04 08:35:21 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |