| From: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(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>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
| Date: | 2014-02-25 04:03:14 |
| Message-ID: | BF2827DCCE55594C8D7A8F7FFD3AB7713DDC4796@SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04 February 2014 14:38, Myself wrote:
>
> 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.
I have tested the revised patch and found ready to be committed.
I am marking this as "Ready for Committer".
Thanks and Regards,
Kumar Rajeev Rastogi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2014-02-25 04:28:00 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-02-25 02:40:27 | Minor comment improvements in tablecmds.c |