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

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tatsuya Kawata <kawatatatsuya0913(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope
Date: 2026-06-22 05:05:20
Message-ID: ajjCkF0cTA2DnSbx@bdtpg
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Kawata-san,

On Sat, Jun 20, 2026 at 06:14:59PM +0900, Tatsuya Kawata wrote:
> Hi Bertrand-san, Michael-san,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Centralizing the explanation and linking
> from views makes sense, so v2 takes that approach.

Thanks for the new version.

--- a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
@@ -1248,6 +1248,35 @@ ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among transact
</tbody>
</tgroup>
</table>
+
+ <sect3 id="locking-tables-fast-path">
+ <title>Fast-Path Locking</title>

The location looks ok to me.

+ for eligible locks, fast-path is used only when a per-backend slot is
+ available;

Should we add a description of the consequences of not being able to acquire the
lock in fast-path (when there are no available slots)? For example, we could
say that this is considerably more expensive and may be subject to contention.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message solai v 2026-06-22 05:14:09 Re: [PATCH] Add support for INSERT ... SET syntax
Previous Message David Rowley 2026-06-22 04:38:39 Re: Improve UNION's output rowcount estimate