| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuya Kawata <kawatatatsuya0913(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope |
| Date: | 2026-06-15 14:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | ajAJbn0JLwQPk7u8@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 01:15:49PM +0900, Tatsuya Kawata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While developing the pg_stat_lock improvement proposed in (*1), I
> noticed that the documentation of the fastpath_exceeded column in
> pg_stat_lock could be more explicit about its scope.
>
> The current documentation describes it as:
>
> Number of times a lock of this type could not be acquired via fast
> path because the fast path slot limit was exceeded. Increasing
> max_locks_per_transaction can reduce this number.
>
> This omits the fact that fast-path locking only applies to relation
> locks acquired in the weak modes (AccessShareLock, RowShareLock,
> RowExclusiveLock), so the counter is always zero for any other
> locktype.
>
> The attached patch adds a short clarification to the pg_stat_lock entry
> in monitoring.sgml.
I think that the current documentation is lacking explanation as to what the fast
path means as a whole. So I think that what we could do instead, is to explain
what fast path means (maybe around pg_lock?). Then, we could reference it in
pg_stat_lock if we feel the need.
Thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2026-06-15 14:54:55 | Re: [(known) BUG] DELETE/UPDATE more than one row in partitioned foreign table |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-06-15 13:54:54 | Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision |