From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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 16:31:34 |
Message-ID: | 6319.1310574694@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Well, first, "lock object" is completely useless, it does not convey
more than "lock" does; and second, you've added confusion because the
very same sentences also use "object" to refer to the thing being
locked.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-07-13 17:20:31 | Re: Small patch for GiST: move childoffnum to child |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-07-13 16:20:11 | Re: Full GUID support |