| 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: | 2026-06-23 04:07:39 |
| Message-ID: | ajoGi58Qlgta3lWn@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Kawata-san,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 08:34:12PM +0900, Tatsuya Kawata wrote:
> Hi Bertrand-san,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed. v3 adds the following paragraph at the end of the Fast-Path
Thanks!
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.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-06-23 04:31:53 | Re: md5_password_warnings for password auth with MD5-encrypted passwords |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-06-23 04:03:21 | Re: [PATCH] Warn when io_min_workers exceeds io_max_workers |