Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
Date: 2007-06-19 17:53:17
Message-ID: 8287.1182275597@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Attached is a patch which moves the messages to ProcSleep().

BTW, with the messages moved out of the ISR it would be safe to make it
identify the specific lock being waited on (in the same terms used in
the existing deadlock messages). Is there a reason not to do that?
I suppose it would eat a few more cycles ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-19 17:58:14 Re: more autovacuum fixes
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-19 17:49:21 more autovacuum fixes