| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help understanding pg_locks |
| Date: | 2011-07-13 16:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | 201107131603.p6DG3XH23955@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, I went with this wording, using "lock object is on" terminology.
> > Applied patch attached --- adjustments welcomed.
>
> I think you misunderstood the suggestion. This is not an improvement,
> it's just more confusion.
Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but
obviously I didn't understand more than that. We did have similar
confusion when we clarified the locking C code. For me, "object" was
the stumbler. Do you have any suggested wording? Everyone seems to
agree it needs improvement.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-13 16:05:17 | Re: Need help understanding pg_locks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-13 15:59:21 | Re: Expression Pruning in postgress |