| 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 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-06-27 17:43:40 | Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2026-06-27 14:02:05 | Re: Small patch to improve safety of utf8_to_unicode(). |