Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> I see Robert committed that one already. If there's a consensus
>> that omitting the pid for committed transactions is the right
>> thing to do, I'm happy to put together a patch. I think that is a
>> better approach than trying to keep it after commit until the
>> connection closes, but all of this is sufficiently minor that
>> it's probably not worth worrying much about.
> I couldn't really figure out why that would be better, but if
> there's a reason I'm fine with it.
If people think that showing the pid which created the lock after
the process has terminated is confusing, the reason I would lean
toward not showing it after transaction completion is that we can
check a bit-flag field which is already in front of us rather than
making calls out to other code for each lock, which might get
expensive, and perhaps compromise modularity.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-04 18:52:11|
|Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2011-04-04 18:50:13|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations|