| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Sándor Miglécz <sandor(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-19 20:19:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20100119201931.GC3675@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
> May I change the interface of XactLockTableWait()
> and MultiXactIdWait()? Not the return value, only the number
> of parameters. E.g. with the relation name, like in the attached
> patch. This solves the problem of bad error messages...
> What do you think?
We already present such locks as being on transaction id such-and-such,
not on relations. IMHO the original wording (waiting on transaction
NNN) is okay; you don't need to fool around with passing around a
relation name (which is misleading anyway).
If you want to provide a friendlier way to display tuple locks, that's
okay but it's a separate patch.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2010-01-19 20:22:46 | MonetDB test says that PostgreSQL often has errors or missing results |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-01-19 20:15:46 | Re: lock_timeout GUC patch |