| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
| Date: | 2014-03-12 18:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHMP_yaiVYy8scTCLO+no9b+a23Y5+jQWFPwp410HpXLA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Rajeev rastogi
<rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04 February 2014 14:38, Myself wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4th February 2014, Christian kruse Wrote:
>> > On 04/02/14 12:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > > ISTM that the phrase "Request queue" is not used much around the
>> lock.
>> > > Using the phrase "wait queue" or Simon's suggestion sound better to
>> > at least me.
>> > > Thought?
>> >
>> > Sounds reasonable to me. Attached patch changes messages to the
>> > following:
>> >
>> > Process holding the lock: A. Wait queue: B.
>> > Processes holding the lock: A, B. Wait queue: C.
>>
>> This looks good to me also.
>
> I have tested the revised patch and found ready to be committed.
>
> I am marking this as "Ready for Committer".
Committed!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-12 18:32:06 | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-12 18:26:39 | Re: COPY table FROM STDIN doesn't show count tag |