Re: lock_timeout GUC patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Date
Msg-id 20100119201931.GC3675@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: lock_timeout GUC patch  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:

> May I change the interface of XactLockTableWait()
> and MultiXactIdWait()? Not the return value, only the number
> of parameters. E.g. with the relation name, like in the attached
> patch. This solves the problem of bad error messages...
> What do you think?

We already present such locks as being on transaction id such-and-such,
not on relations.  IMHO the original wording (waiting on transaction
NNN) is okay; you don't need to fool around with passing around a
relation name (which is misleading anyway).

If you want to provide a friendlier way to display tuple locks, that's
okay but it's a separate patch.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Boszormenyi Zoltan
Date:
Subject: Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Next
From: "Dann Corbit"
Date:
Subject: MonetDB test says that PostgreSQL often has errors or missing results