| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ri_LockPKTuple misleading message |
| Date: | 2026-04-25 13:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | 53n4zdnh3277antifpc2iz6h5dxmkax25ei6lldadh5mez2eyb@bc4olaxxjx3t |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-04-25 20:59:50 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 20:42 Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 7:31 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > I have a feeling we should also update ExecLockRows(), since the
> > TM_Deleted branches in other places seem to use the wording
> > "concurrent delete".
> >
> > cc andres since he was the original author of this code.
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL_12_STABLE/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c#L230
>
>
> Ah, OK, then let's change both instances for consistency, unless Andres
> remembers a reason not to.
>
> Thanks Junwang for checking that.
No, I can't see any reason for that. I assume it was a copy & paste error,
but it's hard to know this far back.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Jones | 2026-04-25 13:53:41 | Re: Fix bug with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-04-25 13:35:39 | Re: Adding an explaining title to Notes on SGML |