| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
| Date: | 2014-03-18 19:49:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20140318194927.GZ6899@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Please see my reply to Robert. My proposal (in form of a patch) is
> > while operating on tuple (0,2) in table "foo": updating tuple
> > Would this work for you?
>
> It's pretty lousy from a readability standpoint, even in English;
> I shudder to think what it might come out as after translation.
Well, the same thing actually. I didn't think it was too bad.
> I think the enum idea you floated is probably worth doing. It's
> certainly no more complex than passing a string, no?
Okay, done that way, attached. I think this one solves all concerns
there were.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| show_table_name_and_tuple_in_lock_log_v13.patch | text/x-diff | 20.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-03-18 19:50:21 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-03-18 19:49:23 | Re: plpgsql.warn_shadow |