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.
-Kevin