Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope

From: Tatsuya Kawata <kawatatatsuya0913(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope
Date: 2026-06-27 14:14:16
Message-ID: CAHza6qdje-ub3AQVnbMdkn9d0DTFkN6x-nN99bjTXNSscTZJaw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Bertrand-san, Michael-san,

Thanks for the additional review!

> Looking closer, I'm not sure that in:
>
> - lock table
> + lock table. See <xref linkend="locking-tables-fast-path"/> for
> + details.
>
> the "for details" is needed. Looking at the pg_locks table, it looks like
> "(See xxxx)" would be more consistent.

Fixed.

> I am wondering if the paragraph in view-pg-locks could be
> improved and/or shortened with what you are proposing here, even if
> most of it points to the inconsistencies one could get when querying
> pg_locks due to the volatile nature of fast-path locks... At least a
> link on the pg_locks page pointing to this new section could be
> something to consider.

Thanks for the detailed thought. I looked at that paragraph. I was
hoping to fold the two together, but the content did not seem to
overlap, so I limited the change to adding a link as you suggested.

v4 attached.

Regards,
Tatsuya Kawata

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-doc-add-Fast-Path-Locking-section.patch application/octet-stream 5.5 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2026-06-27 14:02:05 Re: Small patch to improve safety of utf8_to_unicode().