Re: Need help understanding pg_locks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Need help understanding pg_locks
Date
Msg-id 201107131603.p6DG3XH23955@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Need help understanding pg_locks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Need help understanding pg_locks
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > OK, I went with this wording, using "lock object is on" terminology. 
> > Applied patch attached --- adjustments welcomed.
> 
> I think you misunderstood the suggestion.  This is not an improvement,
> it's just more confusion.

Well, I thought the "lock on" wording helped avoid the confusion but
obviously I didn't understand more than that.  We did have similar
confusion when we clarified the locking C code.  For me, "object" was
the stumbler.  Do you have any suggested wording?  Everyone seems to
agree it needs improvement.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Expression Pruning in postgress
Next
From: Florian Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: Need help understanding pg_locks