Re: Notice lock waits

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I have it PGC_SUSET because it does send some tiny amount of
>> information about the blocking process (the PID) to the blocked
>> process. That is probably too paranoid, because the PID can be seen
>> by anyone in the pg_locks table anyway.
>
> Why not just leave out the PID? I think it's often far too simplistic
> to blame a lock wait on a single other process, anyway.

It actually wasn't including the PID anyway, as the
errdetail_log_plural was not getting passed to the client.

So I changed it to PGC_USERSET, didn't attempt to include details that
won't be sent anyway (although it would be nice for a superuser to be
able to see the statement text of the blocker, but that is a bigger
issue than I am willing to deal with here) and have removed a memory
leak/bug I introduced by foolishly trying to use 'continue' to avoid
introducing yet another layer of nesting.

Cheers,

Jeff