Re: ri_LockPKTuple misleading message

On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 1:51 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 10:38 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> Here is a patch to fix both instances. I'll leave the ExecLockRows()
> instances unchanged in the back-branches due to the lack of user
> complaints.

New version where I added a test case to the isolation suite that
exercises ri_LockPKTuple().

Will push barring objections.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote