Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire

From: Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 09:08:30
Message-ID: BF2827DCCE55594C8D7A8F7FFD3AB7713DDBF148@SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 4th February 2014, Christian kruse Wrote:
> 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.

This looks good to me also.

Thanks and Regards,
Kumar Rajeev Rastogi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-02-04 09:15:25 Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-02-04 09:01:28 Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2